Abstract
Purpose
To evaluate the productivity difference between teaching and non-teaching workflow models in an abdominal imaging division in an academic radiology department.
Methods and materials
RVU data were compiled for six faculty members from the abdominal imaging division over a six-month period. Modalities included ultrasound and CT of the abdomen and pelvis. The relative RVU productivity for faculty members by workflow was compared individually and the composite data for the workflow models were compared. The relative RVU productivity for each faculty member was compared individually and in aggregate to study the effect of the workflow models on RVUs using factorial ANOVA. Turnaround times (TAT) were compared for each attending under both models. TAT data were analyzed using paired t-tests with Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons.
Results
Daily RVU data from 387 instances were analyzed. Daily RVUs for faculty members ranged from 23.5 ± 2.3 (mean ± standard error) to 46.2 ± 2.4 with non-teaching and from 29.8 ± 2.2 to 54.4 ± 2.7 with teaching workflow, respectively. There was a significant main effect of the workflow model on RVU productivity (p < 0.05). A significant increase of 27.8% in RVUs was noted with teaching workflow (42.8 ± 0.9) relative to non-teaching workflow (33.5 ± 1.7; p < 0.05). Teaching workflow resulted in significantly higher view-final and complete-final TATs (593 ± 112 min, mean ± SE and 841 ± 96 min, mean ± SE, respectively) compared to the non-teaching workflow (385 ± 124 min).
Conclusion
Teaching workflow improves abdominal imaging productivity with an increase in report turnaround times.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
1. Kohn, LT, Corrigan, J, & Donaldson, MS (2000) To err is human: Building a safer health system. Washington, D.C: National Academy Press
2. Institute of Medicine (US) (2001) Crossing the quality chasm: A new health system for the 21st century. Washington, D.C: National Academy Press
3. Keehan SP, Stone DA, Poisal JA, et al (2017) National Health Expenditure Projections, 2016-2025: Price Increases, Aging Push Sector to 20 Percent of Economy. Health Affairs 36(3):553-563
MedPAC. A Data Book: Healthcare Spending and the Medicare Program. Retrieved January 3, 2017 from: http://www.medpac.gov/-documents-/data-book
5. Eschelman DJ, Sullivan KL, Parker L, et al (2000) The relationship of clinical and academic productivity in a university hospital radiology department. AJR 174:27-31
6. Jamadar DA, Carlos R, Caoili EM, et al (2005) Estimating the effects of informal radiology resident teaching on radiologist productivity: What is the cost of Teaching? JACR 12(1):123-128
Roth CG, Read PJ, Lakhani P, et al (2013) RVU productivity comparison between private practice radiology workflow and academic radiology workflow models. ARRS Annual Meeting.
Roth CG, Lakhani P, Read PJ, et al (2012) Perceptions of relative productivity of university radiology attendings working with and without trainees. RSNA Annual Meeting.
Monaghan DA, KassakKM, Ghomrawi HM. (2006). Determinants of radiologists’ productivity in private group practices in California. J Am Coll Radiol; 3:108-114
10. Walsh CB, Wu MZ, McInnes MDF (2018) Association between clinical productivity and resident teaching quality. JACR 15(9):1326-1329
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Naringrekar, H.V., Dave, J., Akyol, Y. et al. Comparing the productivity of teaching and non-teaching workflow models in an academic abdominal imaging division. Abdom Radiol 46, 2908–2912 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-020-02942-4
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-020-02942-4