Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The RADCAT-3 system for closing the loop on important non-urgent radiology findings: a multidisciplinary system-wide approach

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Emergency Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The goal of this project was to create a system that was easy for radiologists to use and that could reliably identify, communicate, and track communication of important but non-urgent radiology findings to providers and patients. Prior to 2012, our workflow for communicating important non-urgent diagnostic imaging results was cumbersome, rarely used by our radiologists, and resulted in delays in report turnaround time. In 2012, we developed a new system to communicate important non-urgent findings (the RADiology CATegorization 3 (RADCAT-3) system) that was easy for radiologists to use and documented communication of results in the electronic medical record. To evaluate the performance of the new system, we reviewed our radiology reports before (June 2011–June 2012) and after (June 2012–June 2014) the implementation of the new system to compare utilization by the radiologists and success in communicating these findings. During the 12 months prior to implementation, 250 radiology reports (0.06 % of all reports) entered our workflow for communicating important non-urgent findings. One-hundred percent were successfully communicated. During the 24 months after implementation, 13,158 radiology reports (1.4 % of all reports) entered our new RADCAT-3 workflow (3995 (0.8 % of all reports) during year 1 and 9163 (1.9 % of all reports) during year 2). 99.7 % of those reports were successfully communicated. We created a reliable system to ensure communication of important but non-urgent findings with providers and/or patients and to document that communication in the electronic medical record. The rapid adoption of the new system by radiologists suggests that they found it easy to use and had confidence in its integrity. This system has the potential to improve patient care by improving the likelihood of appropriate follow-up for important non-urgent findings that could become life threatening.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Dang PA, Kalra MK, Blake MA et al (2008) Natural language processing using online analytic processing for assessing recommendations in radiology reports. J Am Coll Radiol 5:197–204

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Sistrom CL, Dreyer KJ, Dang PP et al (2009) Recommendations for additional imaging in radiology reports: multifactorial analysis of 5.9 million examinations. Radiology 253:453–461

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Gunn AJ, Sahani DV, Bennett SE, Choy G (2013) Recent measures to improve radiology reporting: perspectives from primary care physicians. J Am Coll Radiol 10:122–127

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Little BP, Gilman MD, Humphrey KL et al (2014) Outcome of recommendations for radiographic follow-up of pneumonia on outpatient chest radiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 202:54–59

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Harvey HB, Gilman MD, Wu CC et al (2015) Diagnostic yield of recommendations for chest CT examination prompted by outpatient chest radiographic findings. Radiology 275:262–271

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Baumgarten DA, Nelson RC (1997) Outcome of examinations self-referred as a result of spiral CT of the abdomen. Acad Radiol 4:802–805

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Benjamin MS, Drucker EA, McLoud TC, Shepard JA (2003) Small pulmonary nodules: detection at chest CT and outcome. Radiology 226:489–493

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. You JJ, Laupacis A, Newman A, Bell CM (2010) Non-adherence to recommendations for further testing after outpatient CT and MRI. Am J Med 123:557 e551–557 e558

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Blagev DP, Lloyd JF, Conner K et al (2014) Follow-up of incidental pulmonary nodules and the radiology report. J Am Coll Radiol 11:378–383

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Al-Mutairi A, Meyer AN, Chang P, Singh H (2015) Lack of timely follow-up of abnormal imaging results and radiologists’ recommendations. J Am Coll Radiol 12:385–389

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Berlin L (2002) Communicating findings of radiologic examinations: whither goest the radiologist’s duty? AJR Am J Roentgenol 178:809–815

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Poon EG, Gandhi TK, Sequist TD, Murff HJ, Karson AS, Bates DW (2004) “I wish I had seen this test result earlier!”: dissatisfaction with test result management systems in primary care. Arch Intern Med 164:2223–2228

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Harvey HB, Tomov E, Babayan A, et al. (2015) Radiology malpractice claims in the United States from 2008 to 2012: characteristics and implications. J Am Coll Radiol

  14. Towbin AJ, Hall S, Moskovitz J, Johnson ND, Donnelly LF (2011) Creating a comprehensive customer service program to help convey critical and acute results of radiology studies. AJR Am J Roentgenol 196:W48–W51

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. O'Connor SD, Dalal AK, Sahni VA, Lacson R, Khorasani R (2015) Does integrating nonurgent, clinically significant radiology alerts within the electronic health record impact closed-loop communication and follow-up? J Am Med Inform Assoc

  16. Singh H, Thomas EJ, Mani S et al (2009) Timely follow-up of abnormal diagnostic imaging test results in an outpatient setting: are electronic medical records achieving their potential? Arch Intern Med 169:1578–1586

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Eisenberg RL, Yamada K, Yam CS, Spirn PW, Kruskal JB (2010) Electronic messaging system for communicating important, but nonemergent, abnormal imaging results. Radiology 257:724–731

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Choksi VR, Marn CS, Bell Y, Carlos R (2006) Efficiency of a semiautomated coding and review process for notification of critical findings in diagnostic imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 186:933–936

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. D’Orsi CJ, Sickles EA, Mendelson E.B, Morris E.A., et al (2013) ACR BI-RADS® Atlas, breast imaging reporting and data system. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology

  20. Lucey LL, Kushner DC, American College of R (2010) The ACR guideline on communication: to be or not to be, that is the question. J Am Coll Radiol 7:109–114

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Thompson RJ, Wojcik SM, Grant WD, Ko PY (2011) Incidental findings on CT scans in the emergency department. Emerg Med Int 2011:624847

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Dutta S, Long WJ, Brown DF, Reisner AT (2013) Automated detection using natural language processing of radiologists recommendations for additional imaging of incidental findings. Ann Emerg Med 62:162–169

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Sloan CE, Chadalavada SC, Cook TS, Langlotz CP, Schnall MD, Zafar HM (2014) Assessment of follow-up completeness and notification preferences for imaging findings of possible cancer: what happens after radiologists submit their reports? Acad Radiol 21:1579–1586

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Singh H, Wilson L, Petersen LA et al (2009) Improving follow-up of abnormal cancer screens using electronic health records: trust but verify test result communication. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 9:49

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Mangano MD, Rahman A, Choy G, Sahani DV, Boland GW, Gunn AJ (2014) Radiologists’ role in the communication of imaging examination results to patients: perceptions and preferences of patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 203:1034–1039

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Amber I, Fiester A (2013) Communicating findings: a justification and framework for direct radiologic disclosure to patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 200:586–591

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Larson PA, Berland LL, Griffith B, Kahn CE Jr, Liebscher LA (2014) Actionable findings and the role of IT support: report of the ACR Actionable Reporting Work Group. J Am Coll Radiol 11:552–558

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Harvey HB, Wu CC, Gilman MD et al (2015) Correlation of the strength of recommendations for additional imaging to adherence rate and diagnostic yield. J Am Coll Radiol 12:1016–1022

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Smith M, Murphy D, Laxmisan A et al (2013) Developing software to “track and catch” missed follow-up of abnormal test results in a complex sociotechnical environment. Appl Clin Inform 4:359–375

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Poon EG, Wang SJ, Gandhi TK, Bates DW, Kuperman GJ (2003) Design and implementation of a comprehensive outpatient results manager. J Biomed Inform 36:80–91

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Grant RW, Wald JS, Poon EG et al (2006) Design and implementation of a web-based patient portal linked to an ambulatory care electronic health record: patient gateway for diabetes collaborative care. Diabetes Technol Ther 8:576–586

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Murphy DR, Laxmisan A, Reis BA et al (2014) Electronic health record-based triggers to detect potential delays in cancer diagnosis. BMJ Qual Saf 23:8–16

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Diagnostic Imaging, The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University/Rhode Island Hospital, 3rd Floor Main Building, 593 Eddy Street, Providence, RI, 02903, USA

    Elizabeth H. Dibble, David W. Swenson, Cynthia Cobb & Jonathan S. Movson

  2. Information Services, Lifespan Corporation, Providence, RI, USA

    Timothy J. Paul & Andrew E. Karn

  3. Department of Emergency Medicine, The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University/Rhode Island Hospital and The Miriam Hospital, Providence, RI, USA

    David C. Portelli

Authors
  1. Elizabeth H. Dibble
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David W. Swenson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Cynthia Cobb
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Timothy J. Paul
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Andrew E. Karn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. David C. Portelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Jonathan S. Movson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elizabeth H. Dibble.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dibble, E.H., Swenson, D.W., Cobb, C. et al. The RADCAT-3 system for closing the loop on important non-urgent radiology findings: a multidisciplinary system-wide approach. Emerg Radiol 24, 119–125 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10140-016-1452-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10140-016-1452-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation