Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE:The purpose of this study is to assess downstream costs associated with pancreatic cysts incidentally detected at MRI. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:Two hundred patients with an incidental pancreatic cyst detected at MRI were identified. Downstream events (imaging, office visits, endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration, or chemotherapy) were identified from the electronic medical record. Radiologists' recommendations and ordering physician management were classified relative to the American College of Radiology (ACR) incidental findings committee recommendations. Costs for the downstream events were estimated using national Medicare rates and a 3% annual discount rate. Mean costs were computed. RESULTS:Estimated downstream costs averaged $460 per cyst ($872 per cyst with any follow-up testing). Nine patients had a clinically relevant outcome during follow-up (increase in cyst size, development of new cyst, or development of pancreatic cancer). Downstream cost per cyst with a clinically relevant outcome was $1364. Costs were greater when ordering physicians overmanaged ($842) versus when they were adherent ($631) or undermanaged ($252) relative to radiologist recommendation. Although costs were $252 when ordering physicians undermanaged relative to ACR incidental findings committee recommendations, costs were similar when ordering physicians were adherent ($811) or overmanaged ($845) relative to ACR incidental findings committee recommendations. Costs did not vary significantly according to whether radiologists recommended follow-up testing ($317-$491) or whether radiologist recommendations were adherent, undermanaged, or overmanaged relative to ACR incidental findings committee recommendations ($344-$528). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The findings suggest a role for targeted educational efforts, collaborative partnerships, and other initiatives to foster greater adherence to radiologist recommendations, including critical test results notification systems, automated reminders within electronic health systems, and stronger language within radiology reports when no follow-up testing is recommended.

Radiologists are facing increasing workplace pressures that can lead to decreased job satisfaction and burnout. The increasing complexity and volumes of cases and increasing numbers of noninterpretive tasks, compounded by decreasing reimbursements and visibility in this digital age, have created a critical need to develop innovations that optimize workflow, increase radiologist engagement, and enhance patient care. During their workday, radiologists often must navigate through multiple software programs, including picture archiving and communication systems, electronic health records, and dictation software. Furthermore, additional noninterpretive duties can interrupt image review. Fragmented data and frequent task switching can create frustration and potentially affect patient care. Despite the current successful technological advancements across industries, radiology software systems often remain nonintegrated and not leveraged to their full potential. Each step of the imaging process can be enhanced with use of information technology (IT). Successful implementation of IT innovations requires a collaborative team of radiologists, IT professionals, and software programmers to develop customized solutions. This article includes a discussion of how IT tools are used to improve many steps of the imaging process, including examination protocoling, image interpretation, reporting, communication, and radiologist feedback. ^©RSNA, 2018.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To explore variation in downstream relative costs associated with ovarian cysts incidentally detected on ultrasound. METHODS:For 200 consecutive incidental ovarian cysts on ultrasound, ultrasound reports were classified in terms of presence of a radiologist recommendation for additional imaging. All downstream events (imaging, office visits, and surgery) associated with the cysts were identified from the electronic health record. Medical costs associated with these downstream events were estimated using national Medicare rates. Average cost per cyst was stratified by various factors; cost ratios were computed among subgroups. RESULTS:Average costs per cyst were 1.9 times greater in postmenopausal than premenopausal women. Relative to when follow-up imaging was neither recommended nor obtained, costs were 1.1 times greater when follow-up imaging was recommended but not obtained, 5.1 times greater when follow-up imaging was both recommended and obtained, and 8.1 times greater when follow-up imaging was obtained despite not being recommended. Costs were 2.5 times greater when the radiologist underrecommended follow-up compared with Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound (SRU) guidelines for management of ovarian cysts, 3.0 times greater when the ordering physician overmanaged compared with the radiologist's recommendation, as well as 1.7 times and 3.8 times greater when the ordering physician undermanaged and overmanaged compared with SRU guidelines, respectively. Four ovarian neoplasms, although no ovarian malignancy, were diagnosed in the cohort. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Follow-up costs for incidental ovarian cysts are highly variable based on a range of factors. Radiologist recommendations may contribute to lower costs among patients receiving follow-up imaging. Such recommendations should reflect best practices and support the follow-up that will be of likely greatest value for patient care.

Inadequate imaging surveillance has been identified as the most significant contributor to abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) rupture. Radiologists can contribute value to patient care and reduce morbidity and mortality related to AAA by incorporating evidence-based management recommendations from the ACR and Society of Vascular Surgery into their report impression. The challenges lie in achieving 100% radiologist compliance to incorporate the recommendations and ensuring that the patient is notified by their provider, the follow-up examination is scheduled, and the patient returns for an imaging test that may be scheduled 3 to 5 years in the future. To address these barriers, radiology quality and informatics leads have harnessed IT solutions to facilitate integration of content, communication of results, and patient follow-up.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Correlation of imaging studies and reference standard outcomes is a significant challenge in radiology. This study evaluates the effectiveness of a new communication tool by assessing the ability of this system to correctly match the imaging studies to arthroscopy reports and qualitatively assessing radiologist behavior before and after the implementation of this system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using a commercially available communication or educational tool and applying a novel matching rule algorithm, radiology and arthroscopy reports were matched from January 17, 2017 to March 1, 2017 based on anatomy. The interpreting radiologist was presented with email notifications containing the impression of the imaging report and the entire arthroscopy report. Total correlation rate of appropriate report pairings, modality-specific correlation rate, and the anatomy-specific correlation rate were calculated. Radiologists using the system were given a survey. RESULTS: Overall correlation rate for all musculoskeletal imaging was 83.1% (433 or 508). Low correlation was found in fluoroscopic procedures at 74.4%, and the highest correlation was found with ultrasound at 88.4%. Anatomic location varied from 51.6% for spine to 98.8% for hips and pelvis studies. Survey results revealed 87.5% of the respondents reporting being either satisfied or very satisfied with the new communication tool. The survey also revealed that some radiologists reviewed more cases than before. CONCLUSIONS: Matching of radiology and arthroscopy reports by anatomy allows for excellent report correlation (83.1%). Automated correlation improves the quality and efficiency of feedback to radiologists, providing important opportunities for learning and improved accuracy.

PURPOSE: Incidental ovarian cysts are frequently detected on imaging. Despite published follow-up consensus statements, there remains variability in radiologist follow-up recommendations and clinician practice patterns. The aim of this study was to evaluate if collaborative ovarian cyst management recommendations and a radiologist decision support tool can improve adherence to follow-up recommendations. METHODS: Gynecologic oncologists and abdominal radiologists convened to develop collaborative institutional recommendations for the management of incidental, asymptomatic simple ovarian cysts detected on ultrasound, CT, and MRI. The recommendations were developed by modifying the published consensus recommendations developed by the Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound on the basis of local practice patterns and the experience of the group members. A less formal process involved the circulation of the published consensus recommendations, followed by suggestions for revisions and subsequent consensus, in similar fashion to the ACR Incidental Findings Committee II. The recommendations were developed by building on the published work of experienced groups to provide the authors' medical community with a set of recommendations that could be endorsed by both the Department of Gynecology and the Department of Radiology to provide supportive guidance to the clinicians who manage incidental ovarian cysts. The recommendations were integrated into a radiologist decision support tool accessible from the dictation software. Nine months after tool launch, institutional review board approval was obtained, and radiology reports mentioning ovarian cysts in the prior 34 months were retrospectively reviewed. For cysts detected on ultrasound, adherence rates to Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound recommendations were calculated for examinations before tool launch and compared with adherence rates to the collaborative institutional recommendations after tool launch. Additionally, electronic medical records were reviewed to determine the follow-up chosen by the clinician. RESULTS: For cysts detected on ultrasound, radiologist adherence to recommendations improved from 50% (98 of 197) to 80% (111 of 139) (P < .05). Overmanagement decreased from 34% (67 of 197) to 10% (14 of 139) (P < .05). A recommendation was considered "overmanaged" if the radiologist recommended follow-up when it was not indicated or if the recommended follow-up time was at a shorter interval than indicated. Clinician adherence to radiologist recommendations showed statistically nonsignificant improvement from 49% (36 of 73) to 57% (27 of 47) (P = .5034). CONCLUSIONS: Management recommendations developed through collaboration with clinicians may help standardize follow-up of ovarian cysts and reduce overutilization.

OBJECTIVE: Recalling a patient to repeat a radiology examination is an adverse and, in certain cases, preventable event. Our objectives were to assess the rate of patient recalls for all imaging performed in the outpatient setting at our institution and to characterize the underlying reasons for the recalls. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of all repeat imaging requests for an inadequate initial imaging study between January 2012 and March 2015. RESULTS: We identified 100 recall requests (mean, 2.6 requests per month), for an overall recall rate of approximately 1 in 8046 ambulatory studies and 1 in 1684 MRI studies. Nearly all recalls (98%) involved adults. A total of 95% of the recalls were for MRI studies. The most common reason for a patient recall request was an incomplete examination, making up 24% of all requests. The other causes were inadequate coverage of the area of interest (22%), protocoling errors (20%), poor imaging quality (15%), additional imaging to clarify a finding (11%), insufficient contrast visualization (7%), and incorrect patient information (1%). CONCLUSION: We found that patient recalls for imaging in the outpatient setting at our institution are not common. When recalls did occur, they were most often related to the acquisition of MR images. Improved technologist education on MRI protocoling and enhanced communication between ordering clinicians and radiologists to clarify the purpose of imaging might reduce the need for repeat ambulatory imaging.