Keith T Chan1, Tamara Carroll2, Ken F Linnau2, Bruce Lehnert2. 1. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Washington, 1959 NE Pacific St, RR215, Mailbox 357115, Seattle, WA 98195-7115. Electronic address: ktchan@uw.edu. 2. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Washington, 1959 NE Pacific St, RR215, Mailbox 357115, Seattle, WA 98195-7115.
Abstract
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Imaging report turnaround time (RTAT) is an important measure of radiology performance and has become the leading priority in customer satisfaction surveys conducted among nonradiologists, who may not be familiar with the imaging workflow. Our aim was to assess physicians' expected RTAT for commonly ordered studies and determine if satisfaction correlates with met expectations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective review of inpatient imaging was conducted at a single academic institution, and RTAT for 18,414 studies was calculated. Examinations were grouped by study type, priority, and time of day. A cross-sectional survey instrument was completed by 48 internal medicine and surgery resident physicians with questions regarding RTAT and their level of satisfaction with various examinations. RESULTS: Actual RTAT ranged from 1.6 to 26.0 hours, with chest radiographs and computed tomographies generally faster than magnetic resonance images and ultrasounds. Urgent (STAT) examinations and those ordered during business hours have shorter RTAT. The time for image interpretation largely contributed to the RTAT because of the lack of night-time radiology coverage. Referring physician expectations were consistently shorter than actual RTAT, ranging from 30 minutes to 24 hours. Overall satisfaction scores were inversely correlated with RTAT, with a strong correlation to the time from study order to imaging (r(2) = 0.63) and a weak correlation to the image interpretation time (r(2) = 0.17). Satisfaction scores did not correlate with whether the actual RTAT met expectations (r(2) = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: Referring physician satisfaction is likely multifactorial. Although RTAT has been reported as a priority, shortening turnaround time alone may not directly improve clinician satisfaction.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Imaging report turnaround time (RTAT) is an important measure of radiology performance and has become the leading priority in customer satisfaction surveys conducted among nonradiologists, who may not be familiar with the imaging workflow. Our aim was to assess physicians' expected RTAT for commonly ordered studies and determine if satisfaction correlates with met expectations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective review of inpatient imaging was conducted at a single academic institution, and RTAT for 18,414 studies was calculated. Examinations were grouped by study type, priority, and time of day. A cross-sectional survey instrument was completed by 48 internal medicine and surgery resident physicians with questions regarding RTAT and their level of satisfaction with various examinations. RESULTS: Actual RTAT ranged from 1.6 to 26.0 hours, with chest radiographs and computed tomographies generally faster than magnetic resonance images and ultrasounds. Urgent (STAT) examinations and those ordered during business hours have shorter RTAT. The time for image interpretation largely contributed to the RTAT because of the lack of night-time radiology coverage. Referring physician expectations were consistently shorter than actual RTAT, ranging from 30 minutes to 24 hours. Overall satisfaction scores were inversely correlated with RTAT, with a strong correlation to the time from study order to imaging (r(2) = 0.63) and a weak correlation to the image interpretation time (r(2) = 0.17). Satisfaction scores did not correlate with whether the actual RTAT met expectations (r(2) = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: Referring physician satisfaction is likely multifactorial. Although RTAT has been reported as a priority, shortening turnaround time alone may not directly improve clinician satisfaction.
Authors: Andrew E Levy; Melanie D Whittington; Tyler J Anstett; Steven T Simon; Allen Wentworth; James E Carter; P Michael Ho Journal: Qual Manag Health Care Date: 2021-10-29 Impact factor: 1.147