Subspecialized radiology reporting: productivity and impact on the turnaround times for radiology reports in a middle-income country

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the effect that transitioning from a model of general radiology reporting to one of subspecialized radiology reporting has on report turnaround times (TATs) and on productivity in the radiology department of a hospital in a middle-income country. Materials and Methods: The reporting workflow in our radiology department was changed from general reporting (any radiologist reporting imaging studies for any specialty) to subspecialized reporting (radiologists exclusively reporting imaging studies that fall within their subspecialty-abdominal, musculoskeletal, cardiothoracic, emergency, or neurological imaging). This was a retrospective study in which we compared general reporting with subspecialized reporting in terms of the following variables: the TAT; the proportions of reports completed within 2 h and within 24 h (TAT-2h and TAT- 24 h, respectively); and productivity. Data were collected over two 24-month periods (2015-2016 for general reporting and 2017-2018 for subspecialized reporting). Results: A total of 208,516 reports were generated. The median report TAT decreased from 49.1 h and 52.9 h in 2015 and 2016, respectively, to 16.1 h and 15.2 h in 2017 and 2018, respectively (p < 0.001). The TAT-2h also improved, increasing from 8.7% and 7.9% in 2015 and 2016, respectively, to 52.0% and 61.3% in 2017 and 2018, respectively (p < 0.001), as did the TAT- 24 h, which increased from 12.1% and 14.1% in 2015 and 2016, respectively, to 74.3% and 78.7% in 2017 and 2018, respectively (p < 0.001). Between the two periods, the total number of scans performed increased by 33% (p = 0.001). Conclusion: The implementation of a subspecialized reporting system significantly improved the median TAT for radiology reports, as well as increasing the TAT-2h and TAT- 24 h, during a time of increased productivity.

Musculoskeletal Radiology Education: A National Survey by the Italian College of Musculoskeletal Radiology

“…A comprehensive and thorough musculoskeletal radiology education is essential for both general and sub-specialised radiologists, given that the former may deal with musculoskeletal examination in emergency departments or outpatient scans, while the latter must support clinical activity of highly specialised orthopaedists, rheumatologists, and other physicians in referral centres [ 22 ]. Notably, authors have highlighted that subspecialists are more accurate in about 80% of reports than general radiologists, particularly concerning oncologic examinations [ 3 ]; this is something that was also highlighted by Rozenberg and associates in reporting scans about musculoskeletal tumours [ 23 ]. Further, authors have shown that young trainees who underwent a dedicated musculoskeletal training period substantially improved their performance in bone densitometry interpretation, thereby impacting the start of osteoporosis treatment with drugs [ 24 ].…”

“…In the era of precision medicine, we are witnessing a constant shift toward more subspecialised physicians and clinical activities, which is something occurring in all fields of radiology, particularly in musculoskeletal (MSK) imaging [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. This is probably due to the ongoing introduction of novel technologies, the improvements in knowledge, and the increasing expectations of other specialists for more and more accurate diagnosis through imaging [ 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 ].…”

Quality Assurance of a Cross-Border and Sub-Specialized Teleradiology Service

“…The growing level of detail and complexity of imaging studies contributes to this divergence. Additionally, some authors have reported reduced turn-around times (TATs) for sub-specialized radiologists when working in their respective fields [ 16 , 17 ]. Evaluating the need for sub-specialization in radiology is, therefore, a discussion about quality as well as quantity [ 12 ].…”