Eric L Tung1, Elizabeth H Dibble2, Gaurav Jindal2, Jonathan S Movson2, David W Swenson2. 1. Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Rhode Island Hospital, The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, 3rd floor Main Building, 593 Eddy Street, Providence, RI, 02903, USA. erictung34@gmail.com. 2. Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Rhode Island Hospital, The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, 3rd floor Main Building, 593 Eddy Street, Providence, RI, 02903, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Breakdown in communication of important imaging results threatens patient safety and risks malpractice claims. To facilitate closed-loop communication, our institution developed a unique radiology report categorization (RADCAT) system employing automated alert notification systems. This study aimed to understand users' initial experiences with the RADCAT system and obtain feedback. METHODS: Web-based surveys were distributed to radiologists and emergency department (ED) providers at our hospital system within 1 year of institution-wide RADCAT implementation. Survey designs differed based on clinical setting. Most prompts utilized declarative statements with 5-point agreement Likert scales. Closed-response data was analyzed with descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Response rates among radiologists and ED providers were 59.4% (63/106) and 38.4% (69/211), respectively. 78.0% (46/59) of radiologists and 60.9% (42/69) of ED providers agreed that RADCAT improves patient care. Of radiologists, 84.1% (53/63) agreed that RADCAT design is intuitive, and 57.6% (34/59) agreed that RADCAT improves efficiency. Of ED providers, 69.6% (48/69) agreed that RADCAT appropriately differentiates urgent and non-urgent findings, and 65.2% (45/69) agreed that auto-population of discharge documents with imaging results containing follow-up recommendations protects them from liability. Only 35.6% (21/59) of radiologists and 21.7% (15/69) of ED providers agreed that RADCAT implementation decreased reading room visits by ordering providers. Open-response feedback showed that some ED providers find RADCAT too complex while some radiologists desire improved transparency regarding imaging study communication status. CONCLUSION: Since its implementation, RADCAT has been well received among radiologists and ED providers with agreement that it improves patient care and effectively distinguishes and communicates important imaging findings.
PURPOSE: Breakdown in communication of important imaging results threatens patient safety and risks malpractice claims. To facilitate closed-loop communication, our institution developed a unique radiology report categorization (RADCAT) system employing automated alert notification systems. This study aimed to understand users' initial experiences with the RADCAT system and obtain feedback. METHODS: Web-based surveys were distributed to radiologists and emergency department (ED) providers at our hospital system within 1 year of institution-wide RADCAT implementation. Survey designs differed based on clinical setting. Most prompts utilized declarative statements with 5-point agreement Likert scales. Closed-response data was analyzed with descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Response rates among radiologists and ED providers were 59.4% (63/106) and 38.4% (69/211), respectively. 78.0% (46/59) of radiologists and 60.9% (42/69) of ED providers agreed that RADCAT improves patient care. Of radiologists, 84.1% (53/63) agreed that RADCAT design is intuitive, and 57.6% (34/59) agreed that RADCAT improves efficiency. Of ED providers, 69.6% (48/69) agreed that RADCAT appropriately differentiates urgent and non-urgent findings, and 65.2% (45/69) agreed that auto-population of discharge documents with imaging results containing follow-up recommendations protects them from liability. Only 35.6% (21/59) of radiologists and 21.7% (15/69) of ED providers agreed that RADCAT implementation decreased reading room visits by ordering providers. Open-response feedback showed that some ED providers find RADCAT too complex while some radiologists desire improved transparency regarding imaging study communication status. CONCLUSION: Since its implementation, RADCAT has been well received among radiologists and ED providers with agreement that it improves patient care and effectively distinguishes and communicates important imaging findings.
Entities:
Keywords:
Alert notification; Communication system; Critical test result; Information technology solutions; Satisfaction survey; Structured reporting
Authors: Paul A Larson; Lincoln L Berland; Brent Griffith; Charles E Kahn; Lawrence A Liebscher Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2014-01-30 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Elizabeth H Dibble; David W Swenson; Cynthia Cobb; Timothy J Paul; Andrew E Karn; David C Portelli; Jonathan S Movson Journal: Emerg Radiol Date: 2016-10-14
Authors: Chris K Kim; Ji Whae Choi; Zhicheng Jiao; Dongcui Wang; Jing Wu; Thomas Y Yi; Kasey C Halsey; Feyisope Eweje; Thi My Linh Tran; Chang Liu; Robin Wang; John Sollee; Celina Hsieh; Ken Chang; Fang-Xue Yang; Ritambhara Singh; Jie-Lin Ou; Raymond Y Huang; Cai Feng; Michael D Feldman; Tao Liu; Ji Sheng Gong; Shaolei Lu; Carsten Eickhoff; Xue Feng; Ihab Kamel; Ronnie Sebro; Michael K Atalay; Terrance Healey; Yong Fan; Wei-Hua Liao; Jianxin Wang; Harrison X Bai Journal: NPJ Digit Med Date: 2022-01-14