Safety profile and technical success of narrow window CT-guided percutaneous biopsy with blunt needle approach in the abdomen and pelvis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess success and safety of CT-guided procedures with narrow window access for biopsy. METHODS: Three hundred ninety-six consecutive patients undergoing abdominal or pelvic CT-guided biopsy or fiducial placement between 01/2015 and 12/2018 were included (183 women, mean age 63 ±â€¯14 years). Procedures were classified into "wide window" (width of the needle path between structures > 15 mm) and "narrow window" (≤ 15 mm) based on intraprocedural images. Clinical information, complications, technical and clinical success, and outcomes were collected. The blunt needle approach is preferred by our interventional radiology team for narrow window access. RESULTS: There were 323 (81.5%) wide window procedures and 73 (18.5%) narrow window procedures with blunt needle approach. The median depth for the narrow window group was greater (97 mm, interquartile range (IQR) 82-113 mm) compared to the wide window group (84 mm, IQR 60-106 mm); p = 0.0017. Technical success was reached in 100% (73/73) of the narrow window and 99.7% (322/323) of the wide window procedures. There was no difference in clinical success rate between the two groups (narrow: 86.4%, 57/66; wide: 89.5%, 265/296; p = 0.46). There was no difference in immediate complication rate (narrow: 1.3%, 1/73; wide: 1.2%, 4/323; p = 0.73) or delayed complication rate (narrow: 1.3%, 1/73; wide: 0.6%, 1/323; p = 0.50). CONCLUSION: Narrow window (< 15 mm) access biopsy and fiducial placement with blunt needle approach under CT guidance is safe and successful. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: CT-guided biopsy and fiducial placement can be performed through narrow window access of less than 15 mm utilizing the blunt-tip technique. KEY POINTS: • A narrow window for CT-guided abdominal and pelvic biopsies and fiducial placements was considered when width of the needle path between vital structures was ≤ 15 mm. • Seventy-three biopsies and fiducial placements performed through a narrow window with blunt needle approach had a similar rate of technical and clinical success and complications compared to 323 procedures performed through a wide window approach, with traditional approach (> 15 mm). • This study confirmed the safety of the CT-guided percutaneous procedures through < 15 mm window with blunt-tip technique.

Highest 3-month international normalized ratio (INR): a predictor of bleeding following ultrasound-guided liver biopsy.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether international normalized ratio (INR), bilirubin, and creatinine predict bleeding risk following percutaneous liver biopsy. METHODS: A total of 870 consecutive patients (age 53 ± 14 years; 53% (459/870) male) undergoing non-targeted, ultrasound-guided, percutaneous liver biopsy at a single tertiary center from 01/2016 to 12/2019 were retrospectively reviewed. Results were analyzed using descriptive statistics and logistic regression models to evaluate the relationship between individual and combined laboratory values, and post-biopsy bleeding risk. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and area under ROC (AUC) curves were constructed to evaluate predictive ability. RESULTS: Post-biopsy bleeding occurred in 2.0% (17/870) of patients, with 0.8% (7/870) requiring intervention. The highest INR within 3 months preceding biopsy demonstrated the best predictive ability for post-biopsy bleeding and was superior to the most recent INR (AUC = 0.79 vs 0.61, p = 0.003). Total bilirubin is an independent predictor of bleeding (AUC = 0.73) and better than the most recent INR (0.61). Multivariate regression analysis of the highest INR and total bilirubin together yielded no improvement in predictive performance compared to INR alone (0.80 vs 0.79). The MELD score calculated using the highest INR (AUC = 0.79) and most recent INR (AUC = 0.74) were similar in their predictive performance. Creatinine is a poor predictor of bleeding (AUC = 0.61). Threshold analyses demonstrate an INR of > 1.8 to have the highest predictive accuracy for bleeding. CONCLUSION: The highest INR in 3 months preceding ultrasound-guided percutaneous liver biopsy is associated with, and a better predictor for, post-procedural bleeding than the most recent INR and should be considered in patient risk stratification. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Despite correction of coagulopathic indices, the highest international normalized ratio within the 3 months preceding percutaneous liver biopsy is associated with, and a better predictor for, bleeding and should considered in clinical decision-making and determining biopsy approach. KEY POINTS: • Bleeding occurred in 2% of patients following ultrasound-guided liver biopsy, and was non-trivial in 41% of those patients who needed additional intervention and had an associated 23% 30-day mortality rate. • The highest INR within 3 months preceding biopsy (AUC = 0.79) is a better predictor of bleeding than the most recent INR (AUC = 0.61). • The MELD score is associated with post-procedural bleeding, but with variable predictive performance largely driven by its individual laboratory components.

Routine radiology-pathology concordance evaluation of CT-guided percutaneous lung biopsies increases the number of cancers identified.

BACKGROUND: Routine concordance evaluation between pathology and imaging findings was introduced for CT-guided biopsies. PURPOSE: To analyze malignancy rate in concordant, discordant, and indeterminate non-malignant results of CT-guided lung biopsies. METHODS: Concordance between pathology results and imaging findings of consecutive patients undergoing CT-guided lung biopsy between 7/1/2016 and 9/30/2021 was assessed during routine meetings by procedural radiologists. Concordant was defined as pathology consistent with imaging findings; discordant was used when pathology could not explain imaging findings; indeterminate when pathology could explain imaging findings but there was concern for malignancy. Recommendations for discordant and indeterminate were provided. All the malignant results were concordant. Pathology of repeated biopsy, surgical sample, or follow-up was considered reference standard. RESULTS: Consecutive 828 CT-guided lung biopsies were performed on 795 patients (median age 70 years, IQR 61-77), 423/828 (51%) women. On pathology, 224/828 (27%) were non-malignant. Among the non-malignant, radiology-pathology concordance determined 138/224 (62%) to be concordant with imaging findings, 54/224 (24%) discordant, and 32/224 (14%) indeterminate. When compared to the reference standard, 33/54 (61%) discordant results, 6/30 (20%) indeterminate, and 3/133 (2%) concordant were malignant. The prevalence of malignancy in the three groups was significantly different (p < 0.001). Time to diagnosis was significantly different between patients who reached the diagnosis with imaging follow-up (median 114 days, IQR 69-206) compared to repeat biopsy (33 days, IQR 18-133) (p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Routine radiology-pathology concordance evaluation of CT-guided lung biopsy correctly identifies patients at high risk for missed diagnosis of malignancy. Repeat biopsy is the fastest method to reach diagnosis. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: A routine radiology-pathology concordance assessment identifies patients with non-malignant CT-guided lung biopsy result who are at greater risk of missed diagnosis of malignancy. KEY POINTS: • A routine radiology-pathology concordance evaluation of CT-guided lung biopsies classified 224 non-malignant results as concordant, discordant, or indeterminate. • The percentage of malignancy on follow-up was significantly different in concordant (2%), discordant (61%), and indeterminate (20%) (p < 0.001). • Time to definitive diagnosis was significantly shorter with repeat biopsy (33 days), compared to imaging follow-up (114 days), p = 0.01.

Moral Distress in Radiology: Frequency, Root Causes, and Countermeasures-Results of a National Survey.

BACKGROUND. A major cause of burnout is moral distress: when one knows the right course of action but institutional constraints make the right course impossible to pursue. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to assess the frequency and severity with which radiologists experience moral distress and to explore moral distress's root causes and countermeasures. METHODS. This study entailed a national survey that evaluated moral distress in radiology. The survey incorporated the validated Moral Distress Scale for Health Care Professionals, along with additional questions. After the scale was modified for applicability to radiology, respondents were asked to assess 16 clinical scenarios in terms of frequency and severity of moral distress. On May 10, 2022, the survey was sent by e-mail to 425 members of radiology practices included on a national radiology society's quality-and-safety LISTSERV. The Measure of Moral Distress for Health Care Professionals (MMD-HP) score was calculated for each respondent as a summary measure of distress across scenarios (maximum possible score, 256). RESULTS. After 12 surveys with incomplete data were excluded, the final analysis included 93 of 425 respondents (22%). A total of 91 of 93 respondents (98%) experienced at least some moral distress for at least one scenario. A total of 17 of 93 respondents (18%) had left a clinical position due to moral distress; 26 of 93 (28%) had considered leaving a clinical position due to moral distress but did not leave. The mean MMD-HP score was 73 ± 51 (SD) for those who had left, 89 ± 47 for those who had considered leaving but did not leave, and 39 ± 35 for those who had never considered leaving (p < .001). A total of 41 of 85 respondents (48%) thought that the COVID-19 pandemic had influenced their moral distress level. Across respondents, the three scenarios with highest moral distress were related to systemic causes (higher case volume than could be read safely, high case volume preventing teaching residents, and lack of administrative action or support). The countermeasure most commonly selected to alleviate moral distress was educating leadership about sources of moral distress (71%). CONCLUSION. Moral distress is prevalent in radiology, typically relates to systemic causes, and is a reported contributor to radiologists changing jobs. CLINICAL IMPACT. Urgent action by radiology practice leadership is required to address moral distress, as radiologists commonly practice in environments contradictory to their core values as physicians.

Emotional Harm in the Radiology Department: Analysis of an Underrecognized Preventable Error.

Background Emotional harm incidents in health care may result in lost trust and adverse outcomes. However, investigations of emotional harm in radiology departments remain lacking. Purpose To better understand contributors and clinical scenarios in which emotional harm can occur in radiology, to document incidences, and to develop preventative countermeasures. Materials and Methods A large tertiary hospital adverse event reporting system was retrospectively searched for submissions under the category of dignity and respect in radiology between December 2014 and December 2020. Submissions were assigned to one of 14 categories per a previously developed classification system. Root-cause analysis of events was performed with a focus on countermeasures for future prevention. The person experiencing emotional harm (patient or staff) was noted. Results Of all radiology-related submissions, 37 of 3032 (1.2%) identified 43 dignity and respect incidents: failure to be patient centered (n = 23; 54%), disrespectful communication (n = 16; 37%), privacy violation (n = 2; 5%), minimization of patient concerns (n = 1; 2%), and loss of property (n = 1; 2%). Failure to be patient centered (n = 23) was subcategorized into disregard for patient preference (12 of 23; 52%), delay in care (eight of 23; 35%), and ineffective communication (three of 23; 13%). Of the 43 incidents, 32 involved patients (74%) and 11 involved staff (26%). Emotional harm in staff was because of disrespectful communication from other staff (eight of 11; 73%). Seventy-three countermeasures were identified: staff communication training (n = 32; 44%), individual feedback (n = 18; 25%), system innovation (n = 16; 22%), improvement of existing communication processes (n = 3; 4%), process reminders (n = 3; 4%), and unclear (n = 1; 1%). Individual feedback and staff communication training that focused on active listening, asking for the patient's preferences, and closed-loop communication addressed 34 of the 43 incidents (79%). Conclusion Most emotional harm incidents were from disrespectful communication and failure to be patient centered. Providing training focused on active listening, asking for patient's preferences, and closed-loop communication would potentially prevent most of these incidents. © RSNA, 2021 See also the editorial by Bruno in this issue.

Outcomes of Postprocedural Closeout Checklist Implementation to Prevent Adverse Events during Interventional Radiology Procedures: An Initiative to Improve Outcomes.

PURPOSE: To assess whether adherence to a postprocedural closeout (PPC) checklist decreases adverse events during image-guided procedures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Based on the analysis of prior adverse events related to image-guided procedures, the Radiology Quality Committee developed a PPC checklist. The rates of serious reportable events related to image-guided procedures performed in the radiology department were recorded annually from 2015 to 2021. The rate of adverse events was normalized to the procedure volume in the corresponding periods. The number of patients requiring repeat procedures was recorded. The severity of impact was classified according to the Society of Interventional Radiology Adverse Event Classification System. The annual rates before (2015 and 2016) and after (2017-2021) the implementation of PPC were compared. RESULTS: Seventy-seven safety reports were identified in image-guided procedures over the study period, of which 43 cases were not related to the PPC, leaving 34 cases for the analysis. Radiology adverse events decreased from 0.069% (14/20,218, 7/y) before PPC implementation to 0.034% (20/58,793, 4/y) after implementation (P = .05, 43% decrease). Radiology repeat procedures decreased from 0.040% (8/20,218, 4/y) before PPC implementation to 0.007% (4/58,793, 0.8/y) after implementation (P = .0033, 80% decrease). Moreover, severity of adverse events decreased (P = .009). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a PPC checklist improved patient outcomes by decreasing the number of adverse events that occur from inadequate safety processes at the end of image-guided procedures by 43%, need for repeat procedures by 80%, and severity of impact of errors.

Concordance Assessment of Pathology Results with Imaging Findings after Image-Guided Biopsy.

PURPOSE: To assess the impact of radiology review for discordance between pathology results from computed tomography (CT)-guided biopsies versus imaging findings performed before a biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective review, which is compliant with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and approved by the institutional review board, 926 consecutive CT-guided biopsies performed between January 2015 and December 2017 were included. In total, 453 patients were presented in radiology review meetings (prospective group), and the results were classified as concordant or discordant. Results from the remaining 473 patients not presented at the radiology review meetings were retrospectively classified. Times to reintervention and to definitive diagnosis were obtained for discordant cases; of these, 49 (11%) of the 453 patients were in the prospective group and 55 (12%) of the 473 patients in the retrospective group. RESULTS: Pathology results from CT-guided biopsies were discordant with imaging in 11% (104/926) of the cases, with 57% (59/104) of these cases proving to be malignant. In discordant cases, reintervention with biopsy and surgery yielded a shorter time to definitive diagnosis (28 and 14 days, respectively) than an imaging follow-up (78 days) (P < .001). The median time to diagnosis was 41 days in the prospective group and 56 days in the retrospective group (P = .46). When radiologists evaluated the concordance between pathology and imaging findings and recommended a repeat biopsy for the discordant cases, more biopsies were performed (50% [11/22] vs 13% [4/31]; P = .005). CONCLUSIONS: Eleven percent of CT-guided biopsies yielded pathology results that were discordant with imaging findings, with 57% of these proving to be malignant on further workup.

Dependent lesion positioning at CT-guided lung biopsy to reduce risk of pneumothorax.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of patient positioning during CT-guided lung biopsy on patients' outcomes. METHODS: In this retrospective, IRB-approved, HIPAA-compliant study, consecutive CT-guided lung biopsies performed on 5/1/2015-12/26/2017 were included. Correlation between incidence of pneumothorax, chest tube placement, pulmonary bleeding with patient, and procedure characteristics was evaluated. Lesion-trachea-table angle (LTTA) was defined as an angle between the lesion, trachea, and horizontal line parallel to the table. Lesion above trachea has a positive LTTA. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed. RESULTS: A total of 423 biopsies in 409 patients (68 ± 11 years, 231/409, 56% female) were included in the study. Pneumothorax occurred in 83/423 (20%) biopsies with chest tube placed in 11/423 (3%) biopsies. Perilesional bleeding occurred in 194/423 (46%) biopsies and hemoptysis in 20/423 (5%) biopsies. Univariate analysis showed an association of pneumothorax with smaller lesions (p = 0.05), positive LTTA (p = 0.002), and lesions not attached to pleura (p = 0.026) with multivariate analysis showing lesion size and LTTA to be independent risk factors. Univariate analysis showed an association of increased pulmonary bleeding with smaller lesions (p < 0.001), no attachment to the pleura (p < 0.001), needle throw < 16 mm (p = 0.05), and a longer needle path (p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed lesion size, a longer needle path, and lesions not attached to the pleura to be independently associated with perilesional bleeding. Risk factors for hemoptysis were longer needle path (p = 0.002), no attachment to the pleura (p = 0.03), and female sex (p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Interventional radiologists can reduce the pneumothorax risk during the CT-guided biopsy by positioning the biopsy site below the trachea. KEY POINTS: • Positioning patient with lesion to be below the trachea for the CT-guided lung biopsy results in lower rate of pneumothorax, as compared with the lesion above the trachea. • Positioning patient with lesion to be below the trachea for the CT-guided lung biopsy does not affect rate of procedure-associated pulmonary hemorrhage or hemoptysis.

Overcoming Human Barriers to Safety Event Reporting in Radiology.

In high-reliability industries that are dedicated to ensuring safety, safety event reporting is the cornerstone of improvement. However, human factors can interfere with consistent reporting. Common human factors that are barriers to safety event reporting include liability concerns; time constraints; physician autonomy; self-regulation; collegiality; the lack of listening, language training, and/or feedback regarding reported events; unclear responsibilities within safety teams; and a high reporting threshold. Other barriers include fears of challenging authority, being disrespected, retribution, and the creation of a difficult work environment. These factors are reviewed in the health care setting, and the countermeasures that need to be introduced at the frontline employee, leadership employee (physicians and managers), and departmental and organizational levels to create a culture of safety in which all employees feel comfortable raising safety concerns are discussed. ©RSNA, 2019.

Impact of Preprocedure Time-Out Checklist for Computed Tomography-Guided Procedures on Workflow and Patient Safety.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the impact of preprocedural time-out on workflow and patient safety in computed tomography (CT)-guided procedures. METHODS: In this institutional review board-approved, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant study, preprocedure time-out was assessed by an independent observer in CT-guided procedures performed from January 16, 2018, to May 15, 2018. Anonymous survey of 302 radiology team members involved in image-guided procedures about preprocedure time-out was performed using REDCap. RESULTS: Preprocedure time-out for 100 CT-guided procedures (biopsies, drainages, ablations) was observed. Procedures were recruited per observer availability and thus were nonconsecutive and nonrandom. Preprocedure time-out was performed in 100 procedures (100%). Median duration was 60 seconds (interquartile range, 60-71 seconds). Scripted checklist was followed in 52 cases (52/100, 52%). Omissions from the preprocedure time-out were identified in 40 cases (40/100, 40%) and were much more frequent when scripted checklist was not used (30/48 [63%] vs 10/52 [19%], P < 0.005). One case (1/100, 1%) was postponed due to abnormal coagulation parameters discovered during the time-out. Three cases (3/100, 3%) were delayed by 3 minutes to address other safety issues. In additional 14 cases (14/100, 14%), safety issues were raised during the time-out, which were resolved in less than 30 seconds.A total of 137 (45%) of 302 survey responses from 54 radiologists (39%), 55 technologists (40%), and 28 nurses (20%) were received. Forty-eight respondents (48/137, 35%) encountered a procedure that was cancelled or delayed as a result of information identified during time-out. Ninety-six percent (131/137) of respondents stated that time-out improves teamwork, 98% (134/137) stated that it enhances communication between the team members, and 93% (127/137) stated that it identifies and resolves problems and ambiguities. CONCLUSIONS: Scripted preprocedure time-out for CT-guided procedures takes approximately 1 minute to execute and detects safety issues in 18% of cases.

Barriers to Safety Event Reporting in an Academic Radiology Department: Authority Gradients and Other Human Factors.

Purpose To investigate barriers to reporting safety concerns in an academic radiology department and to evaluate the role of human factors, including authority gradients, as potential barriers to safety concern reporting. Materials and Methods In this institutional review board-approved, HIPAA-compliant retrospective study, an online questionnaire link was emailed four times to all radiology department staff members (n = 648) at a tertiary care institution. Survey questions included frequency of speaking up about safety concerns, perceived barriers to speaking up, and the annual number of safety concerns that respondents were unsuccessful in reporting. Respondents' sex, role in the department, and length of employment were recorded. Statistical analysis was performed with the Fisher exact test. Results The survey was completed by 363 of the 648 employees (56%). Of those 363 employees, 182 (50%) reported always speaking up about safety concerns, 134 (37%) reported speaking up most of the time, 36 (10%) reported speaking up sometimes, seven (2%) reported rarely speaking up, and four (1%) reported never speaking up. Thus, 50% of employees spoke up about safety concerns less than 100% of the time. The most frequently reported barriers to speaking up included high reporting threshold (69%), reluctance to challenge someone in authority (67%), fear of disrespect (53%), and lack of listening (52%). Conclusion Of employees in a large academic radiology department, 50% do not attain 100% reporting of safety events. The most common human barriers to speaking up are high reporting threshold, reluctance to challenge authority, fear of disrespect, and lack of listening, which suggests that existing authority gradients interfere with full reporting of safety concerns.

The Incidental Splenic Mass at CT: Does It Need Further Work-up? An Observational Study.

Purpose To evaluate whether an incidentally noted splenic mass at abdominal computed tomography (CT) requires further imaging work-up. Materials and Methods In this institutional review board-approved HIPAA-compliant retrospective study, a search of a CT database was performed for patients with splenic masses at CT examinations of the abdomen and chest from 2002 to 2008. Patients were divided into three groups: group 1, patients with a history of malignancy; group 2, patients with symptoms such as weight loss, fever, or pain related to the left upper quadrant and epigastrium; and group 3, patients with incidental findings. Patients' CT scans, follow-up examinations, and electronic medical records were reviewed. Final diagnoses of the causes of the masses were confirmed with imaging follow-up (83.9%), clinical follow-up (13.7%), and pathologic examination (2.4%). Results This study included 379 patients, 214 (56.5%) women and 165 (43.5%) men, with a mean age ± standard deviation of 59.3 years ± 15.3 (range, 21-97 years). There were 145 (38.3%) patients in the malignancy group, 29 (7.6%) patients in the symptomatic group, and 205 (54.1%) patients in the incidental group. The incidence of malignant splenic masses was 49 of 145 (33.8%) in the malignancy group, eight of 29 (27.6%) in the symptomatic group, and two of 205 (1.0%) in the incidental group (P < .0001). The incidental group consisted of new diagnoses of lymphoma in one (50%) patient and metastases from ovarian carcinoma in one (50%) patient. Malignant splenic masses in the incidental group were not indeterminate, because synchronous tumors in other organs were diagnostic of malignancy. Conclusion In an incidental splenic mass, the likelihood of malignancy is very low (1.0%). Therefore, follow-up of incidental splenic masses may not be indicated. © RSNA, 2018.

Ongoing Professional Practice Evaluation of Radiologists: Strategies and Tools for Simplifying a Complex Process.

The Joint Commission, our major accreditation organization, requires that all physicians who have been granted privileges at an organization must undergo evaluation of and collect data relating to their performance, to make the decisions of privileging more objective and continuous by that organization. For radiologists, this so-called ongoing professional practice evaluation (OPPE) can be assessed by using the six general core competencies. These competencies were initially developed for graduate medical education and defined by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education and have now been expanded to provide a general framework for defining categories of data to be collected in assessing the performance of practicing radiologists. Within each core competency, various radiology-relevant metrics exist that can be measured to fulfill the OPPE requirements. Each radiology department can determine the specific type of data to be collected, including determining what items are defined as acceptable performance metrics, what data or outcomes require further monitoring, and what specific data or data trends would trigger the need for an additional focused and more thorough professional practice evaluation, also known as a focused professional practice evaluation (FPPE). ©RSNA, 2018.

The Road to Wellness: Engagement Strategies to Help Radiologists Achieve Joy at Work.

Physician wellness is recognized as a critical component of enhancing the quality of health care. An epidemic of symptoms related to stress and burnout among medical professionals, including radiologists, in the workplace is threatening not only health care providers at a personal level but also the entire health care system. In this review, the authors highlight recognized stressors in the contemporary radiology workplace and offer practical suggestions for mitigating burnout, improving professional engagement, and promoting wellness. Thematic goals to focus on include fostering an integrated and harmonious community at work, diminishing workplace detractors, creating opportunities to cultivate positive attitudes and intellect, and implementing effective leadership practices. ©RSNA, 2018.

Acing the Joint Commission Regulatory Visit: Running an Effective and Compliant Safety Program.

Ensuring the safety of patients and staff is a core effort of all health care organizations. Many regulatory agencies, from The Joint Commission to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, provide policies and guidelines, with relevant metrics to be achieved. Data on safety can be obtained through a variety of mechanisms, including gemba walks, team discussion during safety huddles, audits, and individual employee entries in safety reporting systems. Data can be organized on a scorecard that provides an at-a-glance view of progress and early warning signs of practice drift. In this article, relevant policies are outlined, and instruction on how to achieve compliance with national patient safety goals and regulations that ensure staff safety and Joint Commission ever-readiness are described. Additional critical components of a safety program, such as department commitment, a just culture, and human factors engineering, are discussed. ©RSNA, 2018.

Improving Imaging Care for Diverse, Marginalized, and Vulnerable Patient Populations.

Although much attention has been paid to the reduction of disparities in health care within the United States, these issues continue to exist. Such efforts include increased focus on patient centeredness and cultural responsivity. These concepts are based on the recognition that diverse, marginalized, and vulnerable patients may possess different physical, psychologic, or social characteristics that contribute to their diversity and susceptibility. Such patients may face numerous obstacles and barriers when seeking medical care, including financial constraints, difficulties with communication, a limited understanding of how to navigate the health care system, and not feeling welcomed, respected, or safe. It is essential that the radiologist and members of the radiology care team understand and embrace patients' unique characteristics to provide effective and appropriate care to all patients. This article illustrates the spectrum of knowledge that benefits radiologists and members of the radiology care team when interacting with and providing care for the growing pool of diverse, marginalized, and vulnerable patients. ©RSNA, 2018.

Electronic Kiosks for Patient Satisfaction Survey in Radiology.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to analyze patient satisfaction surveys obtained via electronic kiosks in a tertiary-care academic radiology department to detect potential areas of improvement and to identify ways to improve survey response and completion rates. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patient satisfaction surveys submitted via electronic kiosks and via online surveys between January 2015 and January 2016 were included in this retrospective study. The surveys consisted of questions regarding the patients' overall experience, cleanliness of the department, and interactions with the receptionist, technologist, nurse, and physician. Ratings were assessed using a 5-point scale (where 1 denotes poor and 5 denotes optimal) with an option for free-text comments. The likelihood of recommendation was regarded as an indicator of satisfaction and was our primary evaluation metric. Surveys with less than optimal ratings were analyzed in detail. RESULTS: Of 99,289 patients who visited the department, 6736 (6.8%) initiated surveys, and 4938 (73.3%) of those completed them; 4257 of 4865 (87.5%) patients reported optimal satisfaction. More patients responded via electronic kiosk compared with the online survey (4564/4938 [92.4%] vs 374/4938 [7.6%]; p < 0.001). The frequency of completion rate was lower for kiosks in changing and waiting areas compared with that for kiosks next to elevators (1509/2365 [63.8%] vs 3059/3927 [77.8%]; p < 0.0001). Cleanliness of the department (329/1656 [19.9%]) and courtesy of the receptionist (299/1656 [18.1%]) were the most frequent reasons for the lowest ratings. Wait time (61/278 [21.9%]) and communication (37/278 [13.3%]) were associated with the most frequent free-text complaints. CONCLUSION: Survey kiosks led to a higher response rate than online surveys. The completion rate can be further improved by placing kiosks next to elevators. Cleanliness, wait time, patient-staff communication, and especially courtesy of the receptionist were found to be important factors for patient satisfaction.

Impact of Communication Errors in Radiology on Patient Care, Customer Satisfaction, and Work-Flow Efficiency.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of communication errors on patient care, customer satisfaction, and work-flow efficiency and to identify opportunities for quality improvement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a search of our quality assurance database for communication errors submitted from August 1, 2004, through December 31, 2014. Cases were analyzed regarding the step in the imaging process at which the error occurred (i.e., ordering, scheduling, performance of examination, study interpretation, or result communication). The impact on patient care was graded on a 5-point scale from none (0) to catastrophic (4). The severity of impact between errors in result communication and those that occurred at all other steps was compared. Error evaluation was performed independently by two board-certified radiologists. Statistical analysis was performed using the chi-square test and kappa statistics. RESULTS: Three hundred eighty of 422 cases were included in the study. One hundred ninety-nine of the 380 communication errors (52.4%) occurred at steps other than result communication, including ordering (13.9%; n = 53), scheduling (4.7%; n = 18), performance of examination (30.0%; n = 114), and study interpretation (3.7%; n = 14). Result communication was the single most common step, accounting for 47.6% (181/380) of errors. There was no statistically significant difference in impact severity between errors that occurred during result communication and those that occurred at other times (p = 0.29). In 37.9% of cases (144/380), there was an impact on patient care, including 21 minor impacts (5.5%; result communication, n = 13; all other steps, n = 8), 34 moderate impacts (8.9%; result communication, n = 12; all other steps, n = 22), and 89 major impacts (23.4%; result communication, n = 45; all other steps, n = 44). In 62.1% (236/380) of cases, no impact was noted, but 52.6% (200/380) of cases had the potential for an impact. CONCLUSION: Among 380 communication errors in a radiology department, 37.9% had a direct impact on patient care, with an additional 52.6% having a potential impact. Most communication errors (52.4%) occurred at steps other than result communication, with similar severity of impact.