Literature DB >> 27766443

Improved Screening Mammogram Workflow by Maximizing PACS Streamlining Capabilities in an Academic Breast Center.

Ramya Pham1, Daniel Forsberg2,3, Donna Plecha2.   

Abstract

The aim of this study was to perform an operational improvement project targeted at the breast imaging reading workflow of mammography examinations at an academic medical center with its associated breast centers and satellite sites. Through careful analysis of the current workflow, two major issues were identified: stockpiling of paperwork and multiple worklists. Both issues were considered to cause significant delays to the start of interpreting screening mammograms. Four workflow changes were suggested (scanning of paperwork, worklist consolidation, use of chat functionality, and tracking of case distribution among trainees) and implemented in July 2015. Timestamp data was collected 2 months before (May-Jun) and after (Aug-Sep) the implemented changes. Generalized linear models were used to analyze the data. The results showed significant improvements for the interpretation of screening mammograms. The average time elapsed for time to open a case reduced from 70 to 28 min (60 % decrease, p < 0.001), report turn-around time with preliminary signature decreased from 151 to 107 min (29 % decrease, p < 0.001), and report turn-around time final signature from 153 to 139 min (9 % decrease, p = 0.002). These improvements were achieved while keeping the efficiency of the workflow for diagnostic mammograms at large unaltered even with increased volume of mammography examinations (31 % increase of 4344 examinations for May-Jun to 5678 examinations for Aug-Sep). In conclusion, targeted efforts to improve the breast imaging reading workflow for screening mammograms in a teaching environment provided significant performance improvements without affecting the workflow of diagnostic mammograms.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Mammography; PACS; Teaching; Workflow

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 27766443      PMCID: PMC5359200          DOI: 10.1007/s10278-016-9909-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Digit Imaging        ISSN: 0897-1889            Impact factor:   4.056


  15 in total

1.  Workflow optimization: current trends and future directions.

Authors:  Bruce Reiner; Eliot Siegel; John A Carrino
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2002-12-17       Impact factor: 4.056

2.  Saving time, improving satisfaction: the impact of a digital radiology system on physician workflow and system efficiency.

Authors:  Malathi Srinivasan; Eric Liederman; Noralyn Baluyot; Robert Jacoby
Journal:  J Healthc Inf Manag       Date:  2006

Review 3.  Digital mammography: what do we and what don't we know?

Authors:  Ulrich Bick; Felix Diekmann
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2007-02-14       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  Comparison of soft-copy and hard-copy reading for full-field digital mammography.

Authors:  Robert M Nishikawa; Suddhasatta Acharyya; Constantine Gatsonis; Etta D Pisano; Elodia B Cole; Helga S Marques; Carl J D'Orsi; Dione M Farria; Kalpana M Kanal; Mary C Mahoney; Murray Rebner; Melinda J Staiger
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Effect of transition to digital mammography on clinical outcomes.

Authors:  Catherine G Glynn; Dione M Farria; Barbara S Monsees; Jennifer T Salcman; Kimberly N Wiele; Charles F Hildebolt
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2011-07-25       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  The evolution of breast imaging: past to present.

Authors:  Bonnie N Joe; Edward A Sickles
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2014-11       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening.

Authors:  Etta D Pisano; Constantine Gatsonis; Edward Hendrick; Martin Yaffe; Janet K Baum; Suddhasatta Acharyya; Emily F Conant; Laurie L Fajardo; Lawrence Bassett; Carl D'Orsi; Roberta Jong; Murray Rebner
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2005-09-16       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  Impact of transition from analog screening mammography to digital screening mammography on screening outcome in The Netherlands: a population-based study.

Authors:  J Nederend; L E M Duijm; M W J Louwman; J H Groenewoud; A B Donkers-van Rossum; A C Voogd
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2012-06-27       Impact factor: 32.976

9.  Benefits, harms, and costs for breast cancer screening after US implementation of digital mammography.

Authors:  Natasha K Stout; Sandra J Lee; Clyde B Schechter; Karla Kerlikowske; Oguzhan Alagoz; Donald Berry; Diana S M Buist; Mucahit Cevik; Gary Chisholm; Harry J de Koning; Hui Huang; Rebecca A Hubbard; Diana L Miglioretti; Mark F Munsell; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Anna N A Tosteson; Jeanne S Mandelblatt
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2014-05-28       Impact factor: 13.506

10.  A filmless radiology department in a full digital regional hospital: quantitative evaluation of the increased quality and efficiency.

Authors:  Andrea Nitrosi; Giovanni Borasi; Franco Nicoli; Gino Modigliani; Andrea Botti; Marco Bertolini; Pietro Notari
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2007-02-23       Impact factor: 4.056

View more
  2 in total

1.  Improvement of radiology reporting in a clinical cancer network: impact of an optimised multidisciplinary workflow.

Authors:  A W Olthof; J Borstlap; W W Roeloffzen; P M C Callenbach; P M A van Ooijen
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-04-20       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Improving Triage of After-Hours Radiology Examinations Through Worklist Unification.

Authors:  Chintan Shah; Tessa S Cook; Po-Hao Chen; Steven Hyland; Ryan Heavener; Charles E Kahn; Mary H Scanlon
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2020-03-03       Impact factor: 5.532

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.