Wyman W Lai1, Shubhika Srivastava2, Meryl S Cohen3, Peter C Frommelt4, Vivek Allada5. 1. Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York. Electronic address: wyman.lai@columbia.edu. 2. Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, New York. 3. Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 4. Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. 5. Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh of UPMC, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The American Society of Echocardiography's Committee on Pediatric Echocardiography Laboratory Productivity (C-PELP) was formed to study the organizational and productivity issues particular to academic pediatric echocardiography laboratories. After much deliberation, the committee chose studies per physician full-time equivalent per day --the average number of studies interpreted per day by a full-time echocardiography physician dedicated to the laboratory -as the primary measure of physician productivity. METHODS: A survey was sent to 74 North American pediatric echocardiography laboratory directors. The aims of the survey were to (1) determine the annual laboratory volume and types of echocardiographic studies performed, (2) define the average number of studies performed by a pediatric cardiac sonographer in a year, (3) assess the productivity of echocardiography physicians, and (4) identify factors (programmatic or laboratory related) that affect clinical productivity. RESULTS: There were 54 responses to the C-PELP 2011 survey. The average number of studies per physician full-time equivalent per day was 15.0 + 4.5 (median, 13.8; range, 6.2 -27.1), and the average number of studies performed per year by a sonographer was 1,297 + 326 (median, 1,279; range 717 -2,475). These figures were not adjusted for case complexity, time requirement for transesophageal echocardiography, level of expertise, or availability of sonographer assistance. Moreover, the issues of study quality and accuracy were not addressed. CONCLUSIONS: The C-PELP 2011 survey gathered important information on the current organization and staffing of academic pediatric echocardiography laboratories, but the committee did not attempt to craft guidelines or recommendations on staffing requirements. The results of the survey, however, should provide a framework for additional investigation into the optimal structure and staffing of pediatric echocardiography laboratories.
BACKGROUND: The American Society of Echocardiography's Committee on Pediatric Echocardiography Laboratory Productivity (C-PELP) was formed to study the organizational and productivity issues particular to academic pediatric echocardiography laboratories. After much deliberation, the committee chose studies per physician full-time equivalent per day --the average number of studies interpreted per day by a full-time echocardiography physician dedicated to the laboratory -as the primary measure of physician productivity. METHODS: A survey was sent to 74 North American pediatric echocardiography laboratory directors. The aims of the survey were to (1) determine the annual laboratory volume and types of echocardiographic studies performed, (2) define the average number of studies performed by a pediatric cardiac sonographer in a year, (3) assess the productivity of echocardiography physicians, and (4) identify factors (programmatic or laboratory related) that affect clinical productivity. RESULTS: There were 54 responses to the C-PELP 2011 survey. The average number of studies per physician full-time equivalent per day was 15.0 + 4.5 (median, 13.8; range, 6.2 -27.1), and the average number of studies performed per year by a sonographer was 1,297 + 326 (median, 1,279; range 717 -2,475). These figures were not adjusted for case complexity, time requirement for transesophageal echocardiography, level of expertise, or availability of sonographer assistance. Moreover, the issues of study quality and accuracy were not addressed. CONCLUSIONS: The C-PELP 2011 survey gathered important information on the current organization and staffing of academic pediatric echocardiography laboratories, but the committee did not attempt to craft guidelines or recommendations on staffing requirements. The results of the survey, however, should provide a framework for additional investigation into the optimal structure and staffing of pediatric echocardiography laboratories.