Improving Procedure Start Times and Decreasing Delays in Interventional Radiology

Villarreal, Monica C.; Rostad, Bradley S.; Wright, Richard F.; Applegate, Kimberly E.

doi:10.1016/j.acra.2015.08.008

Cited by 17 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…PRSS were most strongly correlated with trustworthiness, whether physicians spent sufficient time with patients, and ability of the physicians to answer questions and explain conditions (Table 2 ). PRSS were not as strongly associated with wait times, which contrasts from literature focused on decreasing patient waiting periods in order to improve PRSS [ 15 - 17 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 70%

What Do Patients Think About Their Radiation Oncologists? An Assessment of Online Patient Reviews on Healthgrades

Prabhu

Randhawa

Clump

et al. 2018

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionAn increasing number of patients search for their physicians online. Many hospital systems utilize Press-Ganey studies as internal tools to analyze patient satisfaction, but independent third-party websites have a large presence online. Patients’ trust in these third-party sites may occur despite a low number of reviews and a lack of validity of patients’ entries. Healthgrades.com has been shown as the most popular site to appear on Google searches for radiation oncologists (ROs) in the United States (US). The aim of this study was to analyze patient satisfaction scores and the factors that influence those scores for American ROs on Healthgrades.MethodsThe physician ratings website Healthgrades was manually queried to obtain reviews from all Medicare-participating ROs with reviews (n=2,679). Patient Review Satisfaction Scores (PRSS) were recorded in response to a variety of questions. All information in the survey was scored from 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent) for the following characteristics: likelihood to recommend (LTR), office environment, ease of scheduling, trust in the physician’s decision, staff friendliness, ability of the physician to listen and answer questions, ability of the physician to explain the condition, and whether the physician spent sufficient time with the patients. Associations amongst these factors were considered by computing Spearman correlation coefficients and utilizing Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests.ResultsThe ROs’ mean LTR score was 4.51±0.9 (median 5.0, 66% received the highest possible score of 5; 95% received a score>2). Patient reviews per RO ranged from 1 to 242 (4.50±0.9, median 2.0). LTR scores correlated very strongly with physician-related factors, ranging from r=0.85 (with appropriate time spent with patients) to r=0.89 (with level of trust in physician). LTR scores were not statistically significantly associated with gender, wait time, ROs’ years since graduation, academic status, or geographic region.ConclusionSatisfaction scores for ROs on a leading physician ratings website are very strong, and most patients leaving reviews are likely to recommend their own ROs to their friends and family. Understanding online ratings and identifying factors associated with positive ratings are important for both patients and ROs due to the recent growth in physician-rating third-party sites. ROs should have increased awareness regarding sites like Healthgrades and their online reputation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 70%

What Do Patients Think About Their Radiation Oncologists? An Assessment of Online Patient Reviews on Healthgrades

Prabhu

Randhawa

Clump

et al. 2018

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There have been a number of studies aimed at identifying and addressing the delays that occur in the interventional suites of large academic hospitals with multiple modalities and suites available. 1,7,8,[10][11][12]14 This study demonstrated that similar challenges were faced at our 370 bed metropolitan hospitalwhich performed approximately 700 interventional angiography cases per year. Although this study only measured the delays occurring for outpatient examinations and did not include inpatient and emergency department examinations, there are nonetheless a number of comparisons that can be made.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 61%

“…Whilst this accounted for 16% (15/93) of delays in our study, in another study it accounted for 23.3% of delays by count, and 26.2% of delays by aggregate duration. 7 At our centre, every IR study underwent justification and approval by an IR consultant prior to scheduling. This process incorporated a review of the results of relevant pathology tests and previous imaging.…”

Section: Documentationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This supports the recommendation that non-procedural duties should be delegated to alternative radiologists as a strategy for improving the workflow of outpatient procedures. 7 Nursing staff availability accounted for 6% of delays (6/93) and was typically associated with participation in interventions within other modalities or unplanned staff absences.…”

Section: Staff Availabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…10 Previous studies have reported high rates of delays in the IR department, with 44-77% of cases commencing late prior to quality improvement (QI), and 28-44% of cases commencing late in the period following QI. 1,7,11 One study highlighted significant improvements achieved through the commencement of the first case of each day occurring on time. By adjusting the shift times of IR nurses, the proportion of cases starting late decreased from 100% to 44.9%.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Identifying delays in the outpatient interventional radiology department: a quality improvement study

Kilgour,

McLean,

Paul

et al. 2023

J of Medical Radiation Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionIn the post‐COVID 19 environment, it has become increasingly important for healthcare services to optimise service delivery for the benefit of both patients and staff. The project purpose was to quantify and determine causes of throughput delays in a newly established outpatient angiography service in a public hospital setting.MethodsThis single‐centre study obtained quantitative and qualitative data for 81 consecutive outpatient interventional radiology (IR) examinations over a 3‐month period via survey and retrospective analysis of electronic medical records. Staff participating in data collection were able to record multiple causes for delay in a single case and were also able to include comments, allowing for more detailed descriptions of the delays that occurred.ResultsA total of 93 delay factors were identified in 73 of the 81 outpatient interventional examinations and grouped into six categories via thematic analysis. Availability of the IR room (40%), availability of the radiologist (28%) and insufficient documentation (18%) were identified as the most frequent causes for delay. Linear regression analysis showed that documentation (P = 0.0002) and room unavailability (P = 0.022) were independently associated with procedural starting delay.ConclusionDelays to the IR procedural start time occurred in 90% of cases (73/81). This study identified the causes for delays in outpatient interventional procedures. This information can be used to improve service delivery in IR departments.

show abstract

Improving the patient experience during musculoskeletal interventional procedures

Delgado

Huang²

2022

Skeletal Radiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Improving Procedure Start Times and Decreasing Delays in Interventional Radiology

Cited by 17 publications

References 15 publications

What Do Patients Think About Their Radiation Oncologists? An Assessment of Online Patient Reviews on Healthgrades

What Do Patients Think About Their Radiation Oncologists? An Assessment of Online Patient Reviews on Healthgrades

Identifying delays in the outpatient interventional radiology department: a quality improvement study

Improving the patient experience during musculoskeletal interventional procedures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About