Quantifying disruption of workflow by phone calls to the neuroradiology reading room.

Shyam Sabat, Paul Kalapos, Einat Slonimsky
Author Information
  1. Shyam Sabat: Penn State Health Milton S Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, Pennsylvania, USA.
  2. Paul Kalapos: Penn State Health Milton S Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, Pennsylvania, USA.
  3. Einat Slonimsky: Penn State Health Milton S Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, Pennsylvania, USA. ORCID

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to understand the source and the reason for the phone calls to our neuroradiology suit and to quantify the size of the problem in terms of duration of individual and aggregated calls.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Observation of the neuroradiology reading room for the entire duration of the working hours over three non-consecutive days was performed, and included telephone calls start time, end time and calls duration for incoming telephone calls. After each phone call the recipients were queried on the details of the phone call; the origin of the call, the reason for the call and the response.
RESULTS: The average total number of minutes (min) spent on the phone each day was 64 min per working day with a total of 39 phone calls per day and 4.4 per hour on average. The trainees answered 71% of the phone calls with additional intervention by attending in 13% of phone calls. The most common source of phone calls was from either the MRI/CT technicians (48%), followed by providers (20%) and returning pages (18%).
CONCLUSION: Cumulative time spent on the phone by neuroradiologists in the reading room ended up in more than an hour per working day, while trainees were taking the majority of phone calls. Most phone calls originated from technicians, hence, requiring specific solutions to mitigate this kind of interruption.

Keywords

References

  1. J Nurs Adm. 2010 Apr;40(4):169-76 [PMID: 20305462]
  2. J Am Coll Radiol. 2014 Jun;11(6):589-93 [PMID: 24775910]
  3. J Am Coll Radiol. 2009 Dec;6(12):864-70 [PMID: 19945042]
  4. J Am Coll Radiol. 2016 Sep;13(9):1102-5 [PMID: 27053159]
  5. Am J Surg. 2010 Jan;199(1):60-5 [PMID: 20103067]
  6. Psychol Rev. 2008 Jul;115(3):602-39 [PMID: 18729594]
  7. J Am Coll Radiol. 2017 Nov;14(11):1498-1503 [PMID: 28916177]
  8. J Am Coll Radiol. 2013 Oct;10(10):760-3 [PMID: 23632133]
  9. N Engl J Med. 2002 Dec 12;347(24):1933-40 [PMID: 12477944]
  10. Cogn Res Princ Implic. 2017;2(1):12 [PMID: 28275705]
  11. Patient Educ Couns. 2013 Dec;93(3):532-4 [PMID: 24184039]
  12. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 2016 Mar-Apr;45(2):101-6 [PMID: 26122926]
  13. Qual Saf Health Care. 2006 Jun;15(3):174-8 [PMID: 16751466]
  14. Acad Radiol. 2014 Dec;21(12):1623-8 [PMID: 25281360]
  15. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2012 Jan-Feb;19(1):6-12 [PMID: 21946236]
  16. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 2019 May - Jun;48(3):207-209 [PMID: 29506879]
  17. Acad Radiol. 2008 Sep;15(9):1198-204 [PMID: 18692761]
  18. Acad Radiol. 2010 Oct;17(10):1299-301 [PMID: 20650664]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0phonecallscalldayperneuroradiologydurationreadingroomworkingtimesourcereasonhourstelephoneaveragetotalspent4hourtraineestechniciansINTRODUCTION:purposestudyunderstandsuitquantifysizeproblemtermsindividualaggregatedMATERIALSANDMETHODS:Observationentirethreenon-consecutivedaysperformedincludedstartendincomingrecipientsquerieddetailsoriginresponseRESULTS:numberminutesmin64 min39answered71%additionalinterventionattending13%commoneitherMRI/CT48%followedproviders20%returningpages18%CONCLUSION:CumulativeneuroradiologistsendedtakingmajorityoriginatedhencerequiringspecificsolutionsmitigatekindinterruptionQuantifyingdisruptionworkflowCommunicationDutyHours/WorkHealthcarequalityimprovementInterruptionsQualitativeresearch

Similar Articles

Cited By