Journal of Digital Imaging

, Volume 31, Issue 2, pp 193–200 | Cite as

Systematic Layout Planning of a Radiology Reporting Area to Optimize Radiologists’ Performance

  • Guilherme Brittes Benitez
  • Flavio Sanson Fogliatto
  • Ricardo Bertoglio Cardoso
  • Felipe Soares Torres
  • Carlo Sasso Faccin
  • José Miguel Dora


Optimizing radiologists’ performance is a major priority for managers of health services/systems, since the radiologists’ reporting activity imposes a severe constraint on radiology productivity. Despite that, methods to optimize radiologists’ reporting workplace layout are scarce in the literature. This study was performed in the Radiology Division (RD) of an 850-bed University-based general hospital. The analysis of the reporting workplace layout was carried out using the systematic layout planning (SLP) method, in association with cluster analysis as a complementary tool in early stages of SLP. Radiologists, architects, and hospital managers were the stakeholders consulted for the completion of different stages of the layout planning process. A step-by-step description of the proposed methodology to plan an RD reporting layout is presented. Clusters of radiologists were defined using types of exams reported and their frequency of occurrence as clustering variables. Sectors with high degree of interaction were placed in proximity in the new RD layout, with separation of noisy and quiet areas. Four reporting cells were positioned in the quiet area, grouping radiologists by subspecialty, as follows: cluster 1-abdomen; cluster 2-musculoskeletal; cluster 3-neurological, vascular and head & neck; cluster 4-thoracic and cardiac. The creation of reporting cells has the potential to limit unplanned interruptions and enhance the exchange of knowledge and information within cells, joining radiologists with the same expertise. That should lead to improvements in productivity, allowing managers to more easily monitor radiologists’ performance.


Radiology Facilities layout Systematic layout planning Radiology health operations 



This work was made possible by the sponsorship of CNPq (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico), CAPES (Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior), FIPE (Fundação Instituto de Pesquisas Econômicas), and Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre, Brazil.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

The HCPA’s Ethical Committee has approved this study, and authors have complied with the recommendations of the Declaration of Helsinki.


  1. 1.
    Bhargavan M, Kaye AH, Forman HP, Sunshine JH: Workload of radiologists in United States in 2006–2007 and trends since 1991–1992. Radiology. 252(2):458–467, 2009. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Duszak, Jr R, Muroff LR: Measuring and Managing Radiologist Productivity, Part 1: Clinical Metrics and Benchmarks. Journal of the American College of Radiology. 7(6):452–458, 2010. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    MacDonald SL, Cowan IA, Floyd R, Mackintosh S, Graham R, Jenkins E et al.: Measuring and managing radiologist workload: application of lean and constraint theories and production planning principles to planning radiology services in a major tertiary hospital. Journal of medical imaging and radiation oncology. 57(5):544–550, 2013. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ondategui-Parra S, Gill IE, Bhagwat JG, Intrieri LA, Gogate A, Zou KH et al.: Clinical operations management in radiology. Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR. 1(9):632–640, 2004. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dora J, Torres F, Gerchman M, Fogliatto F: Development of a local relative value unit to measure radiologists’ computed tomography reporting workload. Journal of medical imaging and radiation oncology, 2016.
  6. 6.
    Crabbe JP, Frank CL, Nye WW: Improving report turnaround time: an integrated method using data from a radiology information system. AJR American journal of roentgenology. 163(6):1503–1507, 1994. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Goyal N, Jain N, Rachapalli V: Ergonomics in radiology. Clinical Radiology. 64(2):119–126, 2009. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gupta V. Radiodiagnosis and Imaging Services. In: Goel SD, editor. Textbook of Hospital Administration. 1 ed. India: Elsevier India; 2014.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tellioğlu H, Wagner I: Work Practices Surrounding PACS: The Politics of Space in Hospitals. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW). 10(2):163–188, 2001. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kulkarni MH, Bhatwadekar SG, Thakur HM: A literature review of facility planning and plant layouts. International Journal of Engineering Sciences & Research Technology. 4(3):35–42, 2015Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shayan E, Chittilappilly A: Genetic algorithm for facilities layout problems based on slicing tree structure. International Journal of Production Research. 42(19):4055–4067, 2004. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Arnolds I, Nickel S: Layout planning problems in health care. In: Eiselt AH, Marianov V eds. Applications of location analysis. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2015, p 109–52.–3–319-20282-2_5
  13. 13.
    Tompkins JA, White JA, Bozer YA, Tanchoco JMA: Facilities planning. 4 ed: Wiley, 2010Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yang T, Su CT, Hsu YR: Systematic layout planning: a study on semiconductor wafer fabrication facilities. International Journal of Operations & Production Management. 20(11):1359–1371, 2000. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gupta K, Gupta SK, Kant S, Chandrashekhar R, Satpathy S: Modern trends in planning and designing of hospitals: Principles and practice: Jaypee Brothers Publishers, 2007.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tortorella GL, Fogliatto FS: Planejamento sistemático de layout com apoio de análise de decisão multicritério. Production. 18:609–624, 2008. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Muther R: Planejamento do layout: sistema SLP: E. Blucher, 1978Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Joseph A, Rashid M: The architecture of safety: hospital design. Current opinion in critical care. 13(6):714–719, 2007. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Suresh NC, Kay JM: Group technology and cellular manufacturing: A State-of-the-Art synthesis of research and practice: Springer US, 2012Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lee Q: Projeto de instalações e do local de trabalho: IMAM, 1998Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Muther R, Wheeler JD. Planejamento Sistemático e Simplificado de Layout: Sistema SLP. São Paulo: IMAM; 2000.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lin Q-L, Liu H-C, Wang D-J, Liu L: Integrating systematic layout planning with fuzzy constraint theory to design and optimize the facility layout for operating theatre in hospitals. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing. 26(1):87–95, 2015. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hua Y, Becker F, Wurmser T, Bliss-Holtz J, Hedges C: Effects of nursing unit spatial layout on nursing team communication patterns, quality of care, and patient safety. Herd. 6(1):8–38, 2012. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rashid M: Research on nursing unit layouts: an integrative review. Facilities. 33(9/10):631–695, 2015. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Brogmus G, Leone W, Butler L, Hernandez E. Best practices in OR suite layout and equipment choices to reduce slips, trips, and falls. AORN journal. 2007;86(3):384–94; quiz 95-8.

Copyright information

© Society for Imaging Informatics in Medicine 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Guilherme Brittes Benitez
    • 1
  • Flavio Sanson Fogliatto
    • 1
  • Ricardo Bertoglio Cardoso
    • 1
  • Felipe Soares Torres
    • 2
  • Carlo Sasso Faccin
    • 2
  • José Miguel Dora
    • 3
  1. 1.Industrial Engineering DepartmentUniversidade Federal do Rio Grande do SulPorto AlegreBrazil
  2. 2.Radiology DivisionHospital de Clínicas de Porto AlegrePorto AlegreBrazil
  3. 3.Health Operations UnitHospital de Clínicas de Porto AlegrePorto AlegreBrazil

Personalised recommendations