Radiologists' Variation of Time to Read Across Different Procedure Types.

Daniel Forsberg, Beverly Rosipko, Jeffrey L Sunshine
Author Information
  1. Daniel Forsberg: Sectra, Teknikringen 20, SE-583 30, Linköping, Sweden. daniel.forsberg@sectra.com. ORCID
  2. Beverly Rosipko: Department of Radiology, Case Western Reserve University and University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, 11100 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH, 44106, USA.
  3. Jeffrey L Sunshine: Department of Radiology, Case Western Reserve University and University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, 11100 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH, 44106, USA.

Abstract

The workload of US radiologists has increased over the past two decades as measured through total annual relative value units (RVUs). This increase in RVUs generated suggests that radiologists' productivity has increased. However, true productivity (output unit per input unit; RVU per time) is at large unknown since actual time required to interpret and report a case is rarely recorded. In this study, we analyzed how the time to read a case varies between radiologists over a set of different procedure types by retrospectively extracting reading times from PACS usage logs. Specifically, we tested two hypotheses that; i) relative variation in time to read per procedure type increases as the median time to read a procedure type increases, and ii) relative rankings in terms of median reading speed for individual radiologists are consistent across different procedure types. The results that, i) a correlation of -0.25 between the coefficient of variation and median time to read and ii) that only 12 out of 46 radiologists had consistent rankings in terms of time to read across different procedure types, show both hypotheses to be without support. The results show that workload distribution will not follow any general rule for a radiologist across all procedures or a general rule for a specific procedure across many readers. Rather the findings suggest that improved overall practice efficiency can be achieved only by taking into account radiologists' individual productivity per procedure type when distributing unread cases.

Keywords

References

  1. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1991 Dec;157(6):1337-40 [PMID: 1950885]
  2. JAMA. 1987 Aug 14;258(6):799-802 [PMID: 3613008]
  3. J Am Coll Radiol. 2010 Jul;7(7):482-9 [PMID: 20630381]
  4. Radiology. 2000 Mar;214(3):815-22 [PMID: 10715051]
  5. Radiology. 2009 Aug;252(2):458-67 [PMID: 19508987]
  6. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000 Sep;175(3):591-5 [PMID: 10954435]
  7. Acad Radiol. 2001 Jun;8(6):524-32 [PMID: 11394548]
  8. J Digit Imaging. 2016 Dec;29(6):670-676 [PMID: 27099222]
  9. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008 Aug;191(2):321-7 [PMID: 18647896]
  10. J Am Coll Radiol. 2008 Nov;5(11):1137-41 [PMID: 18954814]
  11. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2013 Oct;57(5):558-66 [PMID: 24119269]
  12. J Am Coll Radiol. 2010 Jun;7(6):452-8 [PMID: 20522399]
  13. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000 Jan;174(1):27-31 [PMID: 10628448]
  14. J Am Coll Radiol. 2008 Jul;5(7):817-26 [PMID: 18585659]

MeSH Term

Efficiency
Humans
Radiography
Radiologists
Time Factors
Workload

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0timeprocedurereadradiologistsperacrossrelativeproductivitydifferenttypestypemedianworkloadincreasedtwoRVUsradiologists'unitcasereadingPACShypothesesvariationincreasesiirankingstermsindividualconsistentresultsshowgeneralruleUSpastdecadesmeasuredtotalannualvalueunitsincreasegeneratedsuggestsHowevertrueoutputinputRVUlargeunknownsinceactualrequiredinterpretreportrarelyrecordedstudyanalyzedvariessetretrospectivelyextractingtimesusagelogsSpecificallytestedspeedcorrelation-025coefficient1246withoutsupportdistributionwillfollowradiologistproceduresspecificmanyreadersRatherfindingssuggestimprovedoverallpracticeefficiencycanachievedtakingaccountdistributingunreadcasesRadiologists'VariationTimeReadAcrossDifferentProcedureTypesEfficiencyProductivityRadiologyworkflow

Similar Articles

Cited By