Pediatric Cardiology

, Volume 39, Issue 4, pp 726–730 | Cite as

Data-Driven Quality Improvement Project to Increase the Value of the Congenital Echocardiographic Report

  • Pei-Ni Jone
  • Ruthanne Gould
  • Cindy Barrett
  • Adel K. Younoszai
  • Brian Fonseca
Original Article


Echocardiography is the primary diagnostic modality for congenital heart disease patients. The written report is used to communicate with the care team and organization is often divided into the body with detailed findings and the conclusions with important findings summarized. Strategies to increase workflow efficiency include batch writing of reports after performance of multiple echocardiograms and the use of report templates which may contribute to discrepancies within report leading to potential downstream medical errors. The aim of this project was to measure the rate of inconsistencies in the echocardiogram reports and through an iterative series of process improvement decrease this rate while maintaining sonographer efficiency and diagnostic accuracy. The discrepancy rate, diagnostic error rate, and sonographer productivity were collected one-year prior and during the iterative quality improvement process. The primary outcome and discrepancies in reports were determined by two reviewers: an experienced pediatric echocardiographic cardiologist and a senior sonographer. Minor discrepancies were defined as contradictions between the body and the conclusion of the report that were unlikely to affect patient care. Major discrepancies were defined as discrepancies between the body and the conclusion that had significant potential to affect patient care. Sonographer productivity was measured as studies per sonographer per month. Our primary intervention was to initiate a quarterly QI meeting and to decrease the batch writing of preliminary echocardiogram reports. No major discrepancies were identified pre- or post-intervention. The minor discrepancies decreased from 40.7 to 6%. Sonographer productivity was not significantly changed with a slight increase from 100 studies/sonographer/month during the baseline to 101 studies/sonographer/month during the intervention. There was no change in major or minor diagnostic error rate. Our quality improvement intervention increased the value of our reports by significantly decreasing minor discrepancies without negatively impacting sonographer productivity or diagnostic accuracy.


Echocardiography Quality improvement Quality intervention Efficiency 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

“All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.”

Informed Consent

For this type of study formal consent is not required.


  1. 1.
    Johnson JT, Robinson JD, Young LT, Camarda JA (2016) The effect of image review before patient discharge on Study Completeness and Sonographer Job Satisfaction in a Pediatric Echocardiographic Laboratory. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 29(10):1000–1005. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Benavidez OJ, Gauvreau K, Jenkins KJ, Geva T (2008) Diagnostic errors in pediatric echocardiography: development of taxonomy and identification of risk factors. Circulation 117(23):2995–3001. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Banka P, Schaetzle B, Gauvreau K, Geva T (2015) Determinants of resource utilization in a tertiary pediatric and congenital echocardiographic laboratory. Am J Cardiol 116(7):1139–1143. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Benavidez OJ, Gauvreau K, Geva T (2014) Diagnostic errors in congenital echocardiography: importance of study conditions. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 27(6):616–623. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Stern KW, Gauvreau K, Geva T, Benavidez OJ (2014) The impact of procedural sedation on diagnostic errors in pediatric echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 27(9):949–955. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Parthiban A, Levine JC, Nathan M, Marshall JA, Shirali GS, Simon SD, Colan SD, Newburger JW, Raghuveer G (2016) Implementation of a quality improvement bundle improves echocardiographic imaging after congenital heart surgery in children. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 29(12):1163–1170.e3. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Parthiban A, Levine JC, Nathan M, Marshall JA, Shirali GS, Simon SD, Colan SD, Newburger JW, Raghuveer G (2016) Impact of variability in echocardiographic interpretation on assessment of adequacy of repair following congenital heart surgery: a pilot study. Pediatr Cardiol 37(1):144–150. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Statile C, Statile A, Brown J, Hanke S, Taylor M, Michelfelder E (2016) Using improvement methodology to optimize echocardiographic imaging of coronary arteries in children. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 29(3):247–252. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kruskal JB, Eisenberg R, Sosna J, Yam CS, Kruskal JD, Boiselle PM (2011) Quality initiatives: quality improvement in radiology: basic principles and tools required to achieve success. Radiographics 31(6):1499–1509. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kruskal JB, Anderson S, Yam CS, Sosna J (2009) Strategies for establishing a comprehensive quality and performance improvement program in a radiology department. Radiographics 29(2):315–329. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Marx D (2001) Patient safety and the “Just Culture:” a primer for health care executives. Medical event reporting system. Columbia University, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pei-Ni Jone
    • 1
  • Ruthanne Gould
    • 1
  • Cindy Barrett
    • 1
  • Adel K. Younoszai
    • 1
  • Brian Fonseca
    • 1
  1. 1.Pediatric Cardiology, Children’s Hospital ColoradoUniversity of Colorado School of MedicineAuroraUSA

Personalised recommendations