Quality initiatives: lean approach to improving performance and efficiency in a radiology department.

Many hospital radiology departments are adopting "lean" methods developed in automobile manufacturing to improve operational efficiency, eliminate waste, and optimize the value of their services. The lean approach, which emphasizes process analysis, has particular relevance to radiology departments, which depend on a smooth flow of patients and uninterrupted equipment function for efficient operation. However, the application of lean methods to isolated problems is not likely to improve overall efficiency or to produce a sustained improvement. Instead, the authors recommend a gradual but continuous and comprehensive "lean transformation" of work philosophy and workplace culture. Fundamental principles that must consistently be put into action to achieve such a transformation include equal involvement of and equal respect for all staff members, elimination of waste, standardization of work processes, improvement of flow in all processes, use of visual cues to communicate and inform, and use of specific tools to perform targeted data collection and analysis and to implement and guide change. Many categories of lean tools are available to facilitate these tasks: value stream mapping for visualizing the current state of a process and identifying activities that add no value; root cause analysis for determining the fundamental cause of a problem; team charters for planning, guiding, and communicating about change in a specific process; management dashboards for monitoring real-time developments; and a balanced scorecard for strategic oversight and planning in the areas of finance, customer service, internal operations, and staff development.

Retrievable versus permanent caval filter procedures: when are they cost-effective for interventional radiology?

PURPOSE: Because many retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are placed without ever being removed, placement of a retrievable device that is not removed incurs greater technical cost for the institution than a cheaper permanent filter (PF), with no clinical benefit for the patient and no additional professional or technical revenue for the interventional radiologist and institution. The purposes of this study are to identify patient characteristics associated with lack of removal of a retrievable filter (RF) and to develop a cost-effective strategy for placement of a retrievable IVC filter. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective evaluation of 160 consecutive patients who underwent IVC filter placement with or without removal in our interventional radiology (IR) unit over a period of 31 months was performed. Patient characteristics were identified that were associated with lack of removal of retrievable IVC filters, and the cost savings were calculated in the event that a PF had been substituted for an RF in these patients. RESULTS: A total of 160 consecutive IVC filters were placed during the study period. Of these, 42 (26%) were PFs and 118 (74%) were RFs. During the study period, only 27 of the 118 RFs (23%) were subsequently removed. Factors associated with lack of removal of an RF included patient age (P = .003), presence of ongoing malignancy (P = .04), and indication for filter placement (P = .01). Retrospectively, the use of retrievable devices only in the presence of two of the three selection criteria (ie, age <65 years, no ongoing malignancy, prophylactic indication) would have resulted in a net incremental benefit of $59,562 for the IR service. CONCLUSIONS: The preferential use of retrievable versus permanent devices for filter placement is financially advantageous for an IR unit only if at least 41% of them are eventually removed. The use of clinical criteria to select device type allows significant cost savings.