Anna H Zhao1, Shanna A Matalon2, Atul B Shinagare2, Leslie K Lee2, Giles W Boland2, Ramin Khorasani2. 1. Department of Radiology, Center for Evidence-Based Imaging, Brigham and Women's Hospital/Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. anna_zhao@hms.harvard.edu. 2. Department of Radiology, Center for Evidence-Based Imaging, Brigham and Women's Hospital/Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Assess the impact of a multifaceted intervention to improve the completeness of structured MRI reports for patients undergoing initial staging for rectal cancer. METHODS: This Institutional Review Board-approved retrospective study was performed at a large academic hospital. MRI reports for initial staging of rectal cancer in 2017 and 2019 were analyzed pre- and post-implementation of multiple quality improvement interventions in 2018, including harmonizing MRI protocols across the institution, educational conferences and modules, and requiring second opinion consultation for all MRI rectal cancer examinations. The primary outcome measure was the completeness of rectal cancer staging MRI reports, classified as optimal, satisfactory, or unsatisfactory based on the inclusion of 15 quality measures pre-defined by a consensus of abdominal and cancer imaging subspecialists, colorectal surgeons, and radiation oncologists at our institution, based on published recommendations. Fisher's exact test was used to evaluate changes in report quality and documentation of each quality measure. RESULTS: The study included 138 MRI reports, of which 72 (52%) were completed in 2017 pre-intervention. Post intervention, the proportion of optimal reports increased significantly from 52.8% (38/72) to 71.2% (47/66) (p = 0.035). Documentation of 1 quality measure (N stage) increased post intervention from 91.7% (66/72) to 100% (66/66) (p = 0.029). Documentation of 7 quality measures was 100% post intervention, with a documentation rate of > 95% for all quality measures except radial location of tumor. CONCLUSION: A combination of educational and system-wide interventions was associated with an improvement in the completeness of structured MRI reports for rectal cancer staging.
PURPOSE: Assess the impact of a multifaceted intervention to improve the completeness of structured MRI reports for patients undergoing initial staging for rectal cancer. METHODS: This Institutional Review Board-approved retrospective study was performed at a large academic hospital. MRI reports for initial staging of rectal cancer in 2017 and 2019 were analyzed pre- and post-implementation of multiple quality improvement interventions in 2018, including harmonizing MRI protocols across the institution, educational conferences and modules, and requiring second opinion consultation for all MRI rectal cancer examinations. The primary outcome measure was the completeness of rectal cancer staging MRI reports, classified as optimal, satisfactory, or unsatisfactory based on the inclusion of 15 quality measures pre-defined by a consensus of abdominal and cancer imaging subspecialists, colorectal surgeons, and radiation oncologists at our institution, based on published recommendations. Fisher's exact test was used to evaluate changes in report quality and documentation of each quality measure. RESULTS: The study included 138 MRI reports, of which 72 (52%) were completed in 2017 pre-intervention. Post intervention, the proportion of optimal reports increased significantly from 52.8% (38/72) to 71.2% (47/66) (p = 0.035). Documentation of 1 quality measure (N stage) increased post intervention from 91.7% (66/72) to 100% (66/66) (p = 0.029). Documentation of 7 quality measures was 100% post intervention, with a documentation rate of > 95% for all quality measures except radial location of tumor. CONCLUSION: A combination of educational and system-wide interventions was associated with an improvement in the completeness of structured MRI reports for rectal cancer staging.
Authors: Eisar Al-Sukhni; David E Messenger; J Charles Victor; Robin S McLeod; Erin D Kennedy Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2012-11-10 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Dhakshinamoorthy Ganeshan; Phuong-Anh Thi Duong; Linda Probyn; Leon Lenchik; Tatum A McArthur; Michele Retrouvey; Emily H Ghobadi; Stephane L Desouches; David Pastel; Isaac R Francis Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2017-10-10 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Janneke J C Tersteeg; Paul D Gobardhan; Rogier M P H Crolla; Peter A M Kint; Ilse Niers-Stobbe; Leandra J M Boonman-de Winter; Jennifer M J Schreinemakers Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2018-03-23 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: P J Brown; H Rossington; J Taylor; D M J Lambregts; E Morris; N P West; P Quirke; D Tolan Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-02-22 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: David D B Bates; Hiram Shaish; Marc J Gollub; Mukesh Harisinghani; Chandana Lall; Shannon P Sheedy Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2021-10-04