Skip to main content
Log in

Radiologists’ Variation of Time to Read Across Different Procedure Types

  • Published:
Journal of Digital Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The workload of US radiologists has increased over the past two decades as measured through total annual relative value units (RVUs). This increase in RVUs generated suggests that radiologists’ productivity has increased. However, true productivity (output unit per input unit; RVU per time) is at large unknown since actual time required to interpret and report a case is rarely recorded. In this study, we analyzed how the time to read a case varies between radiologists over a set of different procedure types by retrospectively extracting reading times from PACS usage logs. Specifically, we tested two hypotheses that; i) relative variation in time to read per procedure type increases as the median time to read a procedure type increases, and ii) relative rankings in terms of median reading speed for individual radiologists are consistent across different procedure types. The results that, i) a correlation of -0.25 between the coefficient of variation and median time to read and ii) that only 12 out of 46 radiologists had consistent rankings in terms of time to read across different procedure types, show both hypotheses to be without support. The results show that workload distribution will not follow any general rule for a radiologist across all procedures or a general rule for a specific procedure across many readers. Rather the findings suggest that improved overall practice efficiency can be achieved only by taking into account radiologists’ individual productivity per procedure type when distributing unread cases.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hsiao WC, Braun P, Becker ER, Thomas SR: The resource-based relative value scale: toward the development of an alternative physician payment system. JAMA 258:799–802, 1987

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Conoley PM, Vernon SW: Productivity of radiologists: estimates based on analysis of relative value units. AJR Am J Roentgenol 157:1337–1340, 1991

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Conoley PM: Productivity of radiologists in 1997: estimates based on analysis of resource-based relative value units. AJR Am J Roentgenol 175:591–595, 2000

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Arenson RL, Lu Y, Elliott SC, Jovais C, Avrin DE: Measuring the academic radiologist’s clinical productivity: survey results for subspecialty sections. Acad Radiol 8:524–532, 2001

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Lu Y, Zhao S, Chu PW, Arenson RL: An update survey of academic radiologists’ clinical productivity. J Am Coll Radiol 31:817–26, 2008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bhargavan M, Kaye AH, Forman HP, Sunshine JH: Workload of Radiologists in United States in 2006–2007 and Trends Since 1991–1992 1. Radiology 252:458–67, 2009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Sunshine JH, Burkhardt JH: Radiology Groups’ Workload in Relative Value Units and Factors Affecting It. Radiology 214:815–822, 2000

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Eschelman DJ, Sullivan KL, Parker L, Levin DC: The relationship of clinical and academic productivity in a university hospital radiology department. AJR Am J Roentgenol 174:27–31, 2000

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Duszak R, Muroff LR: Measuring and managing radiologist productivity, part 1: clinical metrics and benchmarks. J Am Coll Radiol 7:452–458, 2010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Duszak R, Muroff LR: Measuring and managing radiologist productivity, part 2: beyond the clinical numbers. J Am Coll Radiol 7:482–489, 2010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Cowan IA, MacDonald SL, Floyd RA: Measuring and managing radiologist workload: Measuring radiologist reporting times using data from a Radiology Information System. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 57:558–566, 2013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Krupinski EA, MacKinnon L, Hasselbach K, Taljanovic M: Evaluating RVUs as a measure of workload for use in assessing fatigue. SPIE Proc 9416:94161A, 2015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Halsted MJ, Froehle CM: Design, implementation, and assessment of a radiology workflow management system. AJR Am J Roentgenol 191:321–327, 2008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Reiner B: Automating radiologist workflow, part 2: hands-free navigation. J Am Coll Radiol 30:1137–41, 2008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Forsberg D, Rosipko B, Sunshine JL: Factors Affecting Radiologist’s PACS Usage. J Digit Imaging, 2016 (EPub)

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel Forsberg.

Ethics declarations

Funding

D. Forsberg is supported by a grant (2014-01422) from the Swedish Innovation Agency (VINNOVA).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Forsberg, D., Rosipko, B. & Sunshine, J.L. Radiologists’ Variation of Time to Read Across Different Procedure Types. J Digit Imaging 30, 86–94 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-016-9911-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-016-9911-z

Keywords

Navigation