Literature DB >> 35699581

Mandating Limits on Workload, Duty, and Speed in Radiology.

Robert Alexander1, Stephen Waite1, Michael A Bruno1, Elizabeth A Krupinski1, Leonard Berlin1, Stephen Macknik1, Susana Martinez-Conde1.   

Abstract

Research has not yet quantified the effects of workload or duty hours on the accuracy of radiologists. With the exception of a brief reduction in imaging studies during the 2020 peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, the workload of radiologists in the United States has seen relentless growth in recent years. One concern is that this increased demand could lead to reduced accuracy. Behavioral studies in species ranging from insects to humans have shown that decision speed is inversely correlated to decision accuracy. A potential solution is to institute workload and duty limits to optimize radiologist performance and patient safety. The concern, however, is that any prescribed mandated limits would be arbitrary and thus no more advantageous than allowing radiologists to self-regulate. Specific studies have been proposed to determine whether limits reduce error, and if so, to provide a principled basis for such limits. This could determine the precise susceptibility of individual radiologists to medical error as a function of speed during image viewing, the maximum number of studies that could be read during a work shift, and the appropriate shift duration as a function of time of day. Before principled recommendations for restrictions are made, however, it is important to understand how radiologists function both optimally and at the margins of adequate performance. This study examines the relationship between interpretation speed and error rates in radiology, the potential influence of artificial intelligence on reading speed and error rates, and the possible outcomes of imposed limits on both caseload and duty hours. This review concludes that the scientific evidence needed to make meaningful rules is lacking and notes that regulating workloads without scientific principles can be more harmful than not regulating at all. © RSNA, 2022.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35699581      PMCID: PMC9340237          DOI: 10.1148/radiol.212631

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   29.146


  100 in total

1.  Effect of monitor luminance and ambient light on observer performance in soft-copy reading of digital chest radiographs.

Authors:  Jin Mo Goo; Ja-Young Choi; Jung-Gi Im; Hyun Ju Lee; Myung Jin Chung; Daehee Han; Seong Ho Park; Jong Hyo Kim; Sang-Hee Nam
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2004-07-23       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 2.  Measuring and managing radiologist productivity, part 1: clinical metrics and benchmarks.

Authors:  Richard Duszak; Lawrence R Muroff
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 5.532

3.  Prevalence of eye strain among radiologists: influence of viewing variables on symptoms.

Authors:  Talia Vertinsky; Bruce Forster
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 3.959

4.  Work hour regulations and training of residents.

Authors:  Harinderpal S Chahal
Journal:  J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 1.895

5.  Holistic component of image perception in mammogram interpretation: gaze-tracking study.

Authors:  Harold L Kundel; Calvin F Nodine; Emily F Conant; Susan P Weinstein
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Radiology Errors across the Diurnal Cycle.

Authors:  Michael A Bruno
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2020-08-18       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 7.  A Review of Perceptual Expertise in Radiology-How it develops, How we can test it, and Why humans still matter in the era of Artificial Intelligence.

Authors:  Stephen Waite; Zerwa Farooq; Arkadij Grigorian; Christopher Sistrom; Srinivas Kolla; Anthony Mancuso; Susana Martinez-Conde; Robert G Alexander; Alan Kantor; Stephen L Macknik
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2020-01       Impact factor: 3.173

8.  Specifying the precision of guiding features for visual search.

Authors:  Robert G Alexander; Roxanna J Nahvi; Gregory J Zelinsky
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2019-06-20       Impact factor: 3.332

Review 9.  Interpretive Error in Radiology.

Authors:  Stephen Waite; Jinel Scott; Brian Gale; Travis Fuchs; Srinivas Kolla; Deborah Reede
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2016-12-27       Impact factor: 3.959

10.  The 'Real-World Approach' and Its Problems: A Critique of the Term Ecological Validity.

Authors:  Gijs A Holleman; Ignace T C Hooge; Chantal Kemner; Roy S Hessels
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2020-04-30
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.