Kaizen Process Improvement in Radiology: Primer for Creating a Culture of Continuous Quality Improvement.

Kaizen process improvement is an element of lean production that is an approach to creating continuous improvement. Kaizen is based on the idea that small ongoing positive changes in workflow and elimination of waste can yield major improvements over time. A focused Kaizen event, or rapid process improvement event, can lead to sustainable process improvement in health care settings that are resistant to change. This approach has been proven to be successful in health care. These events are led by a trained facilitator and coach who provides appropriate team education and engagement. To ensure success, the team must embrace the Kaizen culture, which emphasizes the development of a "learning organization" that is focused on relentless pursuit of perfection. The culture empowers all staff to improve the work they perform, with an emphasis on the process and not the individual. Respect for individual people is key in Kaizen. In radiology, this method has been successful in empowering frontline staff to improve their individual workflows. A 5-day Kaizen event has been successful in increasing on-time starts, decreasing lead time, increasing patient and staff satisfaction, and ensuring sustainability. Sustainable success can occur when the team stays true to lean principles, engages leaders, and empowers team members with the use of timely data to drive decision making. Online supplemental material is available for this article. ©RSNA, 2022.

A discrete event simulation to evaluate impact of radiology process changes on emergency department computed tomography access.

BACKGROUND: Hospitals face the challenge of managing demand for limited computed tomography (CT) resources from multiple patient types while ensuring timely access. METHODS: A discrete event simulation model was created to evaluate CT access time for emergency department (ED) patients at a large academic medical center with six unique CT machines that serve unscheduled emergency, semi-scheduled inpatient, and scheduled outpatient demand. Three operational interventions were tested: adding additional patient transporters, using an alternative creatinine lab, and adding a registered nurse dedicated to monitoring CT patients in the ED. RESULTS: All interventions improved access times. Adding one or two transporters improved ED access times by up to 9.8 minutes (Mann-Whitney (MW) CI: [-11.0,-8.7]) and 10.3 minutes (MW CI [-11.5, -9.2]). The alternative creatinine and RN interventions provided 3-minute (MW CI: [-4.0, -2.0]) and 8.5-minute (MW CI: [-9.7, -8.3]) improvements. CONCLUSIONS: Adding one transporter provided the greatest combination of reduced delay and ability to implement. The projected simulation improvements have been realized in practice.

Breast lesions: evaluation with US strain imaging--clinical experience of multiple observers.

PURPOSE: To prospectively determine the accuracy of using an ultrasonographic (US) strain imaging technique known as lesion size comparison to differentiate benign from malignant breast lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional Review Board approval and patient informed consent were obtained for this HIPPA-compliant study. US strain imaging was performed prospectively for 89 breast lesions in 88 patients. Lesions were imaged by using freehand compression and a real-time strain imaging algorithm. Five observers obtained manual measurements of lesion height, width, and area from B-mode and strain images. By using these size measurements, individual observer and group performances were assessed by using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (A(z)). The performance of a single size parameter versus that of a combination of size parameters was evaluated by using univariate and multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Group A(z) values showed that width ratio and area ratio yielded the best results for differentiating benign and malignant breast lesions, and they were not statistically different from one another (P = .499). For the group, the performance of area and width, which was superior to that of height and aspect ratio, was statistically significant for all cases (P < .011) except for those that compared area with aspect ratio (P = .118). By using a group threshold of 1.04 for width ratio and 1.13 for area ratio, the sensitivity and specificity of the technique were 96% and 21%, respectively, for width and 96% and 24%, respectively, for area. The best observer achieved a sensitivity of 96% and a specificity of 61% by using the area ratio. For all but one observer, combined size parameters did not improve observer performance (P > .258). Significant interobserver performance variability was observed (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Results suggest that US strain imaging has the potential to aid diagnosis of breast lesions. However, manually tracing lesion boundaries for size ratio differentiation in a busy clinical setting did not match the diagnostic performance levels previously reported. Focusing on measurements of lesion width, along with additional observer training or automated processes, may yield a suitable method for routine clinical application.