Journal of Digital Imaging

, Volume 24, Issue 2, pp 300–307 | Cite as

Tracking Delays in Report Availability Caused by Incorrect Exam Status with Web-Based Issue Tracking: A Quality Initiative

  • Omer Abdulrehman Awan
  • Frans van Wagenberg
  • Mark Daly
  • Nabile Safdar
  • Paul Nagy
Article

Abstract

Many radiology information systems (RIS) cannot accept a final report from a dictation reporting system before the exam has been completed in the RIS by a technologist. A radiologist can still render a report in a reporting system once images are available, but the RIS and ancillary systems may not get the results because of the study’s uncompleted status. This delay in completing the study caused an alarming number of delayed reports and was undetected by conventional RIS reporting techniques. We developed a Web-based reporting tool to monitor uncompleted exams and automatically page section supervisors when a report was being delayed by its incomplete status in the RIS. Institutional Review Board exemption was obtained. At four imaging centers, a Python script was developed to poll the dictation system every 10 min for exams in five different modalities that were signed by the radiologist but could not be sent to the RIS. This script logged the exams into an existing Web-based tracking tool using PHP and a MySQL database. The script also text-paged the modality supervisor. The script logged the time at which the report was finally sent, and statistics were aggregated onto a separate Web-based reporting tool. Over a 1-year period, the average number of uncompleted exams per month and time to problem resolution decreased at every imaging center and in almost every imaging modality. Automated feedback provides a vital link in improving technologist performance and patient care without assigning a human resource to manage report queues.

Key words

Quality control quality assurance turnaround time human error communication 

References

  1. 1.
    Branstetter 4th, BF: Basics of imaging informatics. Part 1. Radiology 243:656–667, 2007PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nagy PG, Pierce B, Otto M, Safdar NM: Quality control management and communication between radiologists and technologists. J Am Coll Radiol 5:759–765, 2008PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Papp J: Quality management in imaging sciences, 2nd edition. Mosby, St. Louis, 2004Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group 12: Diagnostic X-Ray Imaging Committee, report no. 74. Medical Physics, Madison, 2002Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Altman D, Gunderman R: Outsourcing: A primer for radiologists. J Am Coll Radiol 5:893–899, 2008PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kang J, Kim M, Hong S, Jung J, Song M: The application of the Six Sigma program for the quality management of PACS. AJR Am J Roentgenol 185:1361–1365, 2005PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Strife J, Kun L, Becker G, Dunnick N, Bosma J, Hattery R: The American Board of Radiology perspective on maintenance of certification: Part IV—Practice quality improvement for diagnostic radiology. Radiology 243:309–313, 2007PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kruskal JB: Editorial: Quality initiatives in radiology: Historical perspectives for an emerging field. RadioGraphics 28:3–5, 2008PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kruskal JB, Yam CS, Sosna J, Hallett DT, Milliman YJ, Kressel HY: Implementation of online radiology quality assurance reporting system for performance improvement: Initial evaluation. Radiology 241:518–527, 2006PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Johnson CD, Swensen SJ, Applegate KE, Blackmore CC, Borgstede JP, Cardella JF, Dilling JA, Dunnick NR, Glenn LW, Hillman BJ, Lau LS, Lexa FJ, Weinreb JC, Wilcox P: Quality improvement in radiology: White paper report on the Sun Valley Group Meeting. J Am Coll Radiol 3:544–549, 2006PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Blackmore CC: Defining quality in radiology. J Am Coll Radiol 4:217–223, 2007PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Adams HG, Arora S: Total quality in radiology: A guide to implementation. St. Lucie, Boca Raton, 1994Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Crabbe JP, Frank CL, Nye WW: Improving report turnaround time: An integrated method using data from a radiology information system. AJR Am J Roentgenol 163:1503–1507, 1994PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Seltzer SE, Kelly P, Adams DF, Chiango BF, Viera MA, Fener E, Rondeau R, Kazanjian N, Laffel G, Shaffer K: Expediting the turnaround of radiology reports: Use of total quality management to facilitate radiologists’ report signing. AJR Am J Roentgenol 162:775–781, 1994PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Seltzer SE, Kelly P, Adams DF, Chiango BF, Viera MA, Fener E, Hooton S, Bannon-Rohrbach S, Healy CD, Doubilet PM, Holman BL: Expediting the turnaround of radiology reports in a teaching hospital setting. AJR Am J Roentgenol 168:889–893, 1997PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Imaging Informatics in Medicine 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Omer Abdulrehman Awan
    • 1
  • Frans van Wagenberg
    • 1
  • Mark Daly
    • 1
  • Nabile Safdar
    • 1
  • Paul Nagy
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Diagnostic Radiology and Nuclear MedicineUniversity of Maryland School of MedicineBaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations