Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Skip to main content

Advertisement

Computer-Aided Reporting of Chest Radiographs: Efficient and Effective Screening in the Value-Based Imaging Era

  • Published:
Journal of Digital Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the post-PACS era, mammography is unique in adopting specialized ergonomic interfaces to improve efficiency in a high volume setting. Chest radiography is also a high volume area of radiology. The authors hypothesize that applying a novel interface for chest radiography interpretation and reporting could create high productivity while maintaining quality. A custom version of the ClearCanvas open source software, EzRad, was created with a workflow re-designed specifically for tuberculosis screening chest radiographs, which utilized standardized computer generated reports. The preliminary reports from 881,792 studies evaluated by radiology residents over a nine-year period were analyzed for productivity as RVU/FTE and compared to the finalized reports from a subspecialty attending chest radiologist for accuracy. Radiology residents were able to produce 7480 RVU/FTE per year in screening chest radiography productivity when using a custom interface at a large academic medical center with a miss rate of 0.1%. Sensitivity was 77% and specificity was 99.9%. An ergonomic user interface allowed high productivity in interpretation of chest radiography for tuberculosis screening while maintaining quality.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Conclusions from ACR, David M. Yousem MD, MBA Johns Hopkins University Radiology Business Practice: how to succeed. David M. Yousem MD, Norman J Beauchamp Jr MD. Elsevier. 2007.

  2. 2015 AMGA Compensation and Productivity Survey. American Medical Group Association. July 2..

  3. Baadh A, Peterkin Y, Wegener M, Flug J, Katz D, Hoffmann JC. The relative value unit: history, current use, and controversies. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 2015. S0363-0188(15)30010-4.

  4. Siegel EL, Reiner BI, Siddiqui KM. Ten filmless years and ten lessons: a 10th-anniversary retrospective from the Baltimore VA Medical Center. J Am Coll Radiol. 2004;1(11):824–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Siegel E, Reiner B. Work flow redesign: the key to success when using PACS. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002 Mar;178(3):563–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bhargavan M, Kaye AH, Forman HP, Sunshine JH. Workload of radiologists in United States in 2006–2007 and trends since 1991–1992. Radiology. 2009;252(2):458–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Siegel EL. Hospital takes plunge into full-fledged PACS. Diagn Imaging (San Franc). 1993;15(2):69–71.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Kahn CE Jr, Langlotz CP, Burnside ES, Carrino JA, Channin DS, Hovsepian DM, Rubin DL. Toward best practices in radiology reporting. Radiology. 2009 ;252(3):852–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Mendelson DS, Rubin DL. Imaging informatics: essential tools for the delivery of imaging services. Acad Radiol. 2013;20(10):1195–212.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. McGinty GB, Allen B Jr, Geis JR, Wald C. IT infrastructure in the era of imaging 3.0. J Am Coll Radiol. 2014;11(12 Pt B):1197–204.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Morgan TA, Helibrun ME, Kahn CE Jr. Reporting initiative of the Radiological Society of North America: progress and new directions. Radiology. 2014 Dec;273(3):642–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Lee, C.I., Enzmann, D.R. Measuring radiology's value in time saved. J Am Coll Radiol. 2012;9:713–717.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. American Medical Association. Current Procedural Terminology. American Medical Association Press. 2016 edition.

  14. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, Sickles EA, Ernster V. Likelihood ratios for modern screening mammography. Risk of breast cancer based on age and mammographic interpretation. JAMA. 1996;276(1):39–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Rosenberg RD, Hunt WC, Williamson MR, Gilliland FD, Wiest PW, Kelsey CA, Key CR, Linver MN. Effects of age, breast density, ethnicity, and estrogen replacement therapy on screening mammographic sensitivity and cancer stage at diagnosis: review of 183,134 screening mammograms in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Radiology. 1998;209(2):511–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. A systematic review of the sensitivity and specificity of symptom- and chest-radiography screening for active pulmonary tuberculosis in HIV-negative persons and persons with unknown HIV status. A.H. van’t Hoog, M.W. Langendam, E. Mitchell, F.G. Cobelens, D. Sinclair, M.M.G. Leeflang, K. Lonnroth.

  17. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Medicare Program; Revisions to payment policies under the physician fee schedule, clinical laboratory fee schedule, access to identifiable data for the centers for medicare and medicaid innovation models and other revisions to part B for CY 2015. Federal Register 79, no. 219. 2014. www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/11/13/2014-26183/medicare-program-revisions-to-payment-policies-under-the-physician-fee-schedule-clinical-laboratory#h-226.

  18. Lu Y, Arenson RL. The academic radiologist's clinical productivity: an update. Acad Radiol. 2005 Sep;12(9):1211–23. Erratum in: Acad Radiol. 2006 Feb;13(2):269.

  19. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. Finding flow: the psychology of engagement with everyday life. Perseus Book Group. New York, NY. 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. Flow: the psychology of optimal experience. Harper Perennial Modern Classics. New York, NY. 2008.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was made possible by the University of Maryland School of Medicine and the Department of Diagnostic Radiology and Nuclear Medicine by providing the facilities and academic time to perform and publish this research. The authors would like to thank Brigitte Pocta for her help with editing the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Morris.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Michael Morris and Babak Saboury contributed equally to this work.

Eliot Siegel and Jean Jeudy are co-primary investigators.

Hypothesis: A “computer-aided reporting” mechanism, as defined by the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA), creating an efficient workflow for high volume tuberculosis (TB) screening chest radiographs can create added value through high productivity and quality.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Morris, M., Saboury, B., Bandla, N. et al. Computer-Aided Reporting of Chest Radiographs: Efficient and Effective Screening in the Value-Based Imaging Era. J Digit Imaging 30, 589–594 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-017-9952-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-017-9952-y

Keywords