A Novel Radiology Communication Tool to Reduce Workflow Interruptions: Clinical Evaluation of RadConnect.

Despite the importance of communication, radiology departments often depend on communication tools that were not created for the unique needs of imaging workflows, leading to frequent radiologist interruptions. The objective of this study was test the hypothesis that a novel asynchronous communication tool for the imaging workflow (RadConnect) reduces the daily average number of synchronous (in-person, telephone) communication requests for radiologists. We conducted a before-after study. Before adoption of RadConnect, technologists used three conventional communication methods to consult radiologists (in-person, telephone, general-purpose enterprise chat (GPEC)). After adoption, participants used RadConnect as a fourth method. Technologists manually recorded every radiologist consult request related to neuro and thorax CT scans in the 40 days before and 40 days after RadConnect adoption. Telephone traffic volume to section beepers was obtained from the hospital telephone system for the same period. The value and usability experiences were collected through an electronic survey and structured interviews. RadConnect adoption resulted in 53% reduction of synchronous (in-person, telephone) consult requests: from 6.1 ± 4.2 per day to 2.9 ± 2.9 (P < 0.001). There was 77% decrease (P < 0.001) in telephone volume to the neuro and thorax beepers, while no significant volume change was noted to the abdomen beeper (control group). Survey responses (46% response rate) and interviews confirmed the positive impact of RadConnect on interruptions. RadConnect significantly reduced radiologists' telephone interruptions. Study participants valued the role-based interaction and prioritized worklist overview in the survey and interviews. Findings from this study will contribute to a more focused work environment.

Added Value of Ultra-low-dose Computed Tomography, Dose Equivalent to Chest X-Ray Radiography, for Diagnosing Chest Pathology.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the clinical value of ultra-low-dose computed tomography (ULDCT) compared with chest x-ray radiography (CXR) for diagnosing chest pathology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 200 patients referred for CXR by outpatient clinics or general practitioners were enrolled prospectively. They underwent CXR (posteroanterior and lateral) and ULDCT (120 kV, 3 mAs) on the same day. In-room time and effective dose were recorded for each examination. Studies were categorized whether they were diagnostic or not, relevant radiologic diagnostic findings were reported, and confidence for diagnosis was recorded by a Likert scale. Differences in diagnostic confidence and effect on management decision were compared. RESULTS: In-room time was <2 minutes for CXR and <3 minutes for ULDCT. Effective dose was 0.040 mSv for CXR and 0.071 mSv for ULDCT. CXR was considered diagnostic in 98% and ULDCT in 100%. The mean perceived confidence for diagnosis was 88±12% with CXR and 98±2% with ULDCT (P<0.0001), whereas discrepant findings between CXR and ULDCT were found in 101 of 200 patients. As compared with CXR, ULDCT had added value for management decisions in 40 of 200 patients. CONCLUSIONS: ULDCT provided added value to the radiologist by improved perceived confidence with a reduction in false-positive and false-negative CXR investigations that had management implications in 20% of patients. The effective dose of ULDCT will not be a limiting factor for introducing ULDCT of the chest on a broad scale in clinical practice.

Scan time and patient dose for thoracic imaging in neonates and small children using axial volumetric 320-detector row CT compared to helical 64-, 32-, and 16- detector row CT acquisitions.

BACKGROUND: Recently a 320-detector-row CT (MDCT) scanner has become available that allows axial volumetric scanning of a 16-cm-long range (50 cm field of view) in a single 0.35-s rotation. For imaging neonates and small children, volume scanning is potentially of great advantage as the entire scan range can be acquired in 0.35 s, which can reduce motion artefacts and may reduce the need for sedation in clinical CT imaging. Also, because there is no over-ranging associated with axial volumetric scanning, this may reduce patient radiation dose. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate, by means of a phantom study, scan time and patient dose for thoracic imaging in neonates and small children by using axial cone-beam and helical fan-beam MDCT acquisitions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Paediatric imaging protocols were assessed for a 320-MDCT volumetric scanner (Aquilion ONE, Toshiba, Otawara, Japan). The 320-MDCT scanner allows for cone-beam acquisitions with coverage up to 160 mm, but it also allows for helical fan-beam acquisitions in 64-, 32-, or 16-MDCT modes. The acquisition configurations that were evaluated were 320 x 0.5 mm, 240 x 0.5 mm, and 160 x 0.5 mm for axial volumetric scanning, and 64 x 0.5 mm, 32 x 0.5 mm, and 16 x 0.5 mm for helical scanning. Dose assessment was performed for clinically relevant paediatric angiographic or chest/mediastinum acquisition protocols with tube voltages of 80 or 100 kVp and tube currents between 40 and 80 mA. RESULTS: Scan time was 0.35 s for 320-MDCT acquisitions, scan times varied between 1.9 s and 8.3 s for helical acquisitions. Dose savings varying between 18% and 40% were achieved with axial volumetric scanning as compared to helical scanning (for 320- versus 64-MDCT at 160 mm and 80 kVp, and for 320- versus 16-MDCT at 80 mm and 100 kVp, respectively). Statistically significant reduction in radiation dose was found for axial 320-MDCT volumetric scanning compared to helical 64-, 32-, and 16-MDCT scanning. CONCLUSION: Axial thoracic CT of neonates and small children with volumetric 320-MDCT can be performed between 5 and 24 times faster compared to helical scanning and can save patient dose.