» Articles » PMID: 30612206

Improving Communication of Actionable Findings in Radiology Imaging Studies and Procedures Using an EMR-Independent System

Overview
Journal J Med Syst
Date 2019 Jan 7
PMID 30612206
Citations 3
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The primary purpose of this study is to determine if the implementation of an actionable findings communication system (PeerVue) with explicitly defined criteria for the classification of critical results, leads to an increase in the number of actionable findings reported by radiologists. Secondary goals are to 1) analyze the adoption rate of PeerVue and 2) assess the accuracy of the classification of actionable findings within this system. Over a two-year period, 890,204 radiology reports were analyzed retrospectively in order to identify the number of actionable findings communicated before (Year 1) and after the implementation of PeerVue (Year 2) at a tertiary care academic medical center. A sub-sample of 145 actionable findings over a two-month period in Year 2 was further analyzed to assess the degree of concordance with our reporting policy. Before PeerVue, 4623/423,070 (1.09%) of radiology reports contained an actionable finding. After its implementation, this number increased to 6825/467,134 (1.46%) (p < 0.0001). PeerVue was used in 3886/6825 (56.9%) cases with actionable findings. The remaining 2939/6825 (43.1%) were reported using the legacy tagging system. From the sub-sample taken from PeerVue, 104/145 (71.7%) were consistent with the updated reporting policy. A software program (PeerVue) utilized for the communication of actionable findings contributed to a 34% (p < 0.0001) increase in the reporting rate of actionable findings. A sub-analysis within the new system indicated a 56.9% adoption rate and a 71.7% accuracy rate in reporting of actionable findings.

Citing Articles

Facial trauma education in radiology: using surgeon feedback as the benchmark for success.

Malouf W, Kondaveeti G, Phillips J, Patel K, Hall J, Fourrier T Emerg Radiol. 2024; 31(6):807-814.

PMID: 39412593 PMC: 11625054. DOI: 10.1007/s10140-024-02288-0.


Automatic detection of actionable radiology reports using bidirectional encoder representations from transformers.

Nakamura Y, Hanaoka S, Nomura Y, Nakao T, Miki S, Watadani T BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2021; 21(1):262.

PMID: 34511100 PMC: 8436473. DOI: 10.1186/s12911-021-01623-6.


Deep Learning-Based Natural Language Processing in Radiology: The Impact of Report Complexity, Disease Prevalence, Dataset Size, and Algorithm Type on Model Performance.

Olthof A, van Ooijen P, Cornelissen L J Med Syst. 2021; 45(10):91.

PMID: 34480231 PMC: 8416876. DOI: 10.1007/s10916-021-01761-4.

References
1.
FitzGerald R . Error in radiology. Clin Radiol. 2002; 56(12):938-46. DOI: 10.1053/crad.2001.0858. View

2.
Berlin L . Communicating findings of radiologic examinations: whither goest the radiologist's duty?. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002; 178(4):809-15. DOI: 10.2214/ajr.178.4.1780809. View

3.
Poon E, Gandhi T, Sequist T, Murff H, Karson A, Bates D . "I wish I had seen this test result earlier!": Dissatisfaction with test result management systems in primary care. Arch Intern Med. 2004; 164(20):2223-8. DOI: 10.1001/archinte.164.20.2223. View

4.
Gandhi T . Fumbled handoffs: one dropped ball after another. Ann Intern Med. 2005; 142(5):352-8. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-142-5-200503010-00010. View

5.
Parl F, OLeary M, Kaiser A, Paulett J, Statnikova K, Shultz E . Implementation of a closed-loop reporting system for critical values and clinical communication in compliance with goals of the joint commission. Clin Chem. 2009; 56(3):417-23. DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2009.135376. View