Eric A Walker1,2, Jonelle M Petscavage-Thomas1, Joseph S Fotos1, Michael A Bruno1. 1. 1 Department of Radiology, Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, PA, USA. 2. 2 Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Uniformed University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We present the results of the 2015 quality metrics (QUALMET) survey, which was designed to assess the commonalities and variability of selected quality and productivity metrics currently employed by a large sample of academic radiology departments representing all regions in the USA. METHODS: The survey of key radiology metrics was distributed in March-April of 2015 via personal e-mail to 112 academic radiology departments. RESULTS: There was a 34.8% institutional response rate. We found that most academic departments of radiology commonly utilize metrics of hand hygiene, report turn around time (RTAT), relative value unit (RVU) productivity, patient satisfaction and participation in peer review. RTAT targets were found to vary widely. The implementation of radiology peer review and the variety of ways in which peer review results are used within academic radiology departments, the use of clinical decision support tools and requirements for radiologist participation in Maintenance of Certification also varied. Policies for hand hygiene and critical results communication were very similar across all institutions reporting, and most departments utilized some form of missed case/difficult case conference as part of their quality and safety programme, as well as some form of periodic radiologist performance reviews. CONCLUSION: Results of the QUALMET survey suggest many similarities in tracking and utilization of the selected quality and productivity metrics included in our survey. Use of quality indicators is not a fully standardized process among academic radiology departments. Advances in knowledge: This article examines the current quality and productivity metrics in academic radiology.
OBJECTIVE: We present the results of the 2015 quality metrics (QUALMET) survey, which was designed to assess the commonalities and variability of selected quality and productivity metrics currently employed by a large sample of academic radiology departments representing all regions in the USA. METHODS: The survey of key radiology metrics was distributed in March-April of 2015 via personal e-mail to 112 academic radiology departments. RESULTS: There was a 34.8% institutional response rate. We found that most academic departments of radiology commonly utilize metrics of hand hygiene, report turn around time (RTAT), relative value unit (RVU) productivity, patient satisfaction and participation in peer review. RTAT targets were found to vary widely. The implementation of radiology peer review and the variety of ways in which peer review results are used within academic radiology departments, the use of clinical decision support tools and requirements for radiologist participation in Maintenance of Certification also varied. Policies for hand hygiene and critical results communication were very similar across all institutions reporting, and most departments utilized some form of missed case/difficult case conference as part of their quality and safety programme, as well as some form of periodic radiologist performance reviews. CONCLUSION: Results of the QUALMET survey suggest many similarities in tracking and utilization of the selected quality and productivity metrics included in our survey. Use of quality indicators is not a fully standardized process among academic radiology departments. Advances in knowledge: This article examines the current quality and productivity metrics in academic radiology.
Authors: David A Jamadar; Ruth Carlos; Elaine M Caoili; Perry G Pernicano; Jon A Jacobson; Smita Patel; Mitra Noroozian; Qian Dong; Janet E Bailey; Stephanie K Patterson; Katherine A Klein; James D Good; Ella A Kazerooni; N Reed Dunnick Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Michael Tran Duong; Andreas M Rauschecker; Jeffrey D Rudie; Po-Hao Chen; Tessa S Cook; R Nick Bryan; Suyash Mohan Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2019-07-26 Impact factor: 3.039