PAs and NPs improve patient care and productivity in a radiology consult practice.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects on efficiency and patient care of the addition of physician assistants (PAs) and NPs to the abdominal radiology consult service. METHODS: We obtained radiologist productivity and patient care metrics for 3 months before and 3 months after the integration of PAs and NPs into our consult service. RESULTS: Integrating PAs and NPs into the workflow led to a significant increase in mean RVUs/shift (15.2 ± 0.9 versus 6.2 ± 1.8; P = .02), number of studies read per shift (10.1 ± 0.5 versus 4.4 ± 1.5; P = .003), revenue per shift hour ($756.20 ± $55.40 versus $335.40 ± $132.60; P = .007), protocol prescription to patient appointment lead time (39.3 ± 6.7 versus 16.3 ± 2.9 days; P = .005), and significant decreases in mean CT (19.3% ± 0.6 versus 3.3% ± 0.6; P = .001) and MRI (11.7% ± 0.6 versus 8.3% ± 0.12; P = .011) same-day protocol changes as patient appointments. CONCLUSIONS: PAs and NPs can be effectively integrated into abdominal radiology consult service, increasing the productivity of radiologists, and enhancing clinical care.

Safety and Efficacy of an Absorbable Filter in the Inferior Vena Cava to Prevent Pulmonary Embolism in Swine.

Purpose To evaluate the immediate and long-term safety as well as thrombus-capturing efficacy for 5 weeks after implantation of an absorbable inferior vena cava (IVC) filter in a swine model. Materials and Methods This study was approved by the institutional animal care and use committee. Eleven absorbable IVC filters made from polydioxanone suture were deployed via a catheter in the IVC of 11 swine. Filters remained in situ for 2 weeks (n = 2), 5 weeks (n = 2), 12 weeks (n = 2), 24 weeks (n = 2), and 32 weeks (n = 3). Autologous thrombus was administered from below the filter in seven swine from 0 to 35 days after filter placement. Fluoroscopy and computed tomography follow-up was performed after filter deployment from weeks 1-6 (weekly), weeks 7-20 (biweekly), and weeks 21-32 (monthly). The infrarenal IVC, lungs, heart, liver, kidneys, and spleen were harvested at necropsy. Continuous variables were evaluated with a Student t test. Results There was no evidence of IVC thrombosis, device migration, caval penetration, or pulmonary embolism. Gross pathologic analysis showed gradual device resorption until 32 weeks after deployment. Histologic assessment demonstrated neointimal hyperplasia around the IVC filter within 2 weeks after IVC filter deployment with residual microscopic fragments of polydioxanone suture within the caval wall at 32 weeks. Each iatrogenic-administered thrombus was successfully captured by the filter until resorbed (range, 1-4 weeks). Conclusion An absorbable IVC filter can be safely deployed in swine and resorbs gradually over the 32-week testing period. The device is effective for the prevention of pulmonary embolism for at least 5 weeks after placement in swine. © RSNA, 2017.

Standardized Reporting in IR: A Prospective Multi-Institutional Pilot Study.

PURPOSE: To assess adoption and survey-based satisfaction rates following deployment of standardized interventional radiology (IR) procedure reports across multiple institutions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Standardized reporting templates for 5 common interventional procedures (central venous access, inferior vena cava [IVC] filter insertion, IVC filter removal, uterine artery embolization, and vertebral augmentation) were distributed to 20 IR practices in a prospective quality-improvement study. Participating sites edited the reports according to institutional preferences and deployed them for a 1-year pilot study concluding in July 2015. Study compliance was measured by sampling 20 reports of each procedure type at each institution, and surveys of interventionalists and referring physicians were performed. Modifications to the standardized reporting templates at each site were analyzed. RESULTS: Ten institutions deployed the standardized reports, with 8 achieving deployment of 3-12 months. The mean report usage rate was 57%. Each site modified the original reports, with 26% mean reduction in length, 18% mean reduction in wordiness, and 60% mean reduction in the number of forced fill-in fields requiring user input. Linear-regression analysis revealed that reduced number of forced fill-in fields correlated significantly with increased usage rate (R2 = 0.444; P = .05). Surveys revealed high satisfaction rates among referring physicians but lower satisfaction rates among interventional radiologists. CONCLUSIONS: Standardized report adoption rates increased when reports were simplified by reducing the number of forced fill-in fields. Referring physicians preferred the standardized reports, whereas interventional radiologists preferred standard narrative reports.

Monte Carlo simulation to analyze the cost-benefit of radioactive seed localization versus wire localization for breast-conserving surgery in fee-for-service health care systems compared with accountable care organizations.

OBJECTIVE: In breast-conserving surgery for nonpalpable breast cancers, surgical reexcision rates are lower with radioactive seed localization (RSL) than wire localization. We evaluated the cost-benefit of switching from wire localization to RSL in two competing payment systems: a fee-for-service (FFS) system and a bundled payment system, which is typical for accountable care organizations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A Monte Carlo simulation was developed to compare the cost-benefit of RSL and wire localization. Equipment utilization, procedural workflows, and regulatory overhead differentiate the cost between RSL and wire localization. To define a distribution of possible cost scenarios, the simulation randomly varied cost drivers within fixed ranges determined by hospital data, published literature, and expert input. Each scenario was replicated 1000 times using the pseudorandom number generator within Microsoft Excel, and results were analyzed for convergence. RESULTS: In a bundled payment system, RSL reduced total health care cost per patient relative to wire localization by an average of $115, translating into increased facility margin. In an FFS system, RSL reduced total health care cost per patient relative to wire localization by an average of $595 but resulted in decreased facility margin because of fewer surgeries. CONCLUSION: In a bundled payment system, RSL results in a modest reduction of cost per patient over wire localization and slightly increased margin. A fee-for-service system suffers moderate loss of revenue per patient with RSL, largely due to lower reexcision rates. The fee-for-service system creates a significant financial disincentive for providers to use RSL, although it improves clinical outcomes and reduces total health care costs.

Improving patient access to an interventional US clinic.

A continuous quality improvement project was conducted to increase patient access to a neurointerventional ultrasonography (US) clinic. The clinic was experiencing major scheduling delays because of an increasing patient volume. A multidisciplinary team was formed that included schedulers, medical assistants, nurses, technologists, and physicians. The team created an Ishikawa diagram of the possible causes of the long wait time to the next available appointment and developed a flowchart of the steps involved in scheduling and completing a diagnostic US examination and biopsy. The team then implemented a staged intervention that included adjustments to staffing and room use (stage 1); new procedures for scheduling same-day add-on appointments (stage 2); and a lead technician rotation to optimize patient flow, staffing, and workflow (stage 3). Six months after initiation of the intervention, the mean time to the next available appointment had decreased from 25 days at baseline to 1 day, and the number of available daily appointments had increased from 38 to 55. These improvements resulted from a coordinated provider effort and had a net present value of more than $275,000. This project demonstrates that structural changes in staffing, workflow, and room use can substantially reduce scheduling delays for critical imaging procedures.

Quality improvement in interventional radiology: an opportunity to demonstrate value and improve patient-centered care.

The changing healthcare environment offers an opportunity for interventional radiology (IR) to showcase its value-specifically, to demonstrate that IR often offers the better, safer, faster, and less expensive treatment option for various clinical scenarios. The best way to demonstrate the value of IR now and to maintain this value in the future is through implementation of patient-centered care built on standardized care delivery, continuous quality improvement, and effective team dynamics.

Quality initiatives: Establishing an interventional radiology patient radiation safety program.

The Interventional Radiology Patient Radiation Safety Program was created to better educate patients who are scheduled to undergo high-dose interventional radiologic procedures about the risks of radiation, better monitor the delivered doses, and reduce the risk for deterministic effects. The program combines preprocedure evaluation and counseling, intraprocedure monitoring, and postprocedure documentation and counseling with the guidelines of the National Cancer Institute and the Society of Interventional Radiology. Between July 2009, when the program was implemented, and September 2010, over 3500 interventional radiologic procedures were monitored and documented, and 63 procedures with an adjusted cumulative dose of more than 3 Gy were identified and further analyzed; four procedures were found to be outside the control limits. Additional review of these four procedures resulted in practice modifications. Anecdotal feedback from physician assistants and attending physicians indicated that the program had another positive effect: Patients who required postprocedure counseling about the potential for radiation-induced skin injuries were no longer surprised by this information. Implementation of this program is straightforward, requires little infrastructure and few resources, and may be applied in most interventional radiology practices. Supplemental material available at http://radiographics.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/rg.321115002/-/DC1.

Engaging nurse practitioners and physician assistants to improve patient care and drive productivity in a radiology consult practice at a comprehensive cancer center.

BACKGROUND: The demand for health care in the United States is increasing because of an aging population and an increase in the number of individuals insured. This has led to requests to revamp the primary care infrastructure fundamentally. LOCAL PROBLEM: The optimal use of nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) is still a subject of debate, but recently, it was reported that for many medical conditions, NP and PA-managed care outcomes are consistent with physician-managed care outcomes. METHODS: Radiologists' productivity was measured according to relative value units (RVUs)/shift and professional billing changes. Patient care metrics measured were prescribed protocol to patient appointment lead time and number of same-day prescribed imaging protocol changes. INTERVENTIONS: The focus was on radiologists' productivity and patient care for three months before and three months after integrating NP and PA into our abdominal radiology consult service. RESULTS: We observed significant increases in the mean RVUs/shift (15.2 ± 0.9 vs. 6.2 ± 1.8; p = .02), studies read per shift (10.1 ± 0.5 vs. 4.4 ± 1.5; p = .003), revenue per shift hour ($756.20 ± 55.40 vs. $335.40 ± 32.60; p = .007), and protocol prescription to patient appointment lead time (39.3 ± 6.7 days vs. 16.3 ± 2.9 days; p = .005) and saw significant decreases in the mean prescribed CT (19.3 ± 0.6 vs. 3.3 ± 0.6; p = .001) and MRI (11.7 ± 0.6 vs. 8.30 ± 0.12; p = .011) same day protocol changes in NP and PA integrated workflow. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that NP and PA can be effectively integrated into the abdominal radiology consult service, increasing radiologists' productivity and enhancing clinical care.

Quality initiatives: measuring and managing the procedural competency of radiologists.

Many regulatory and oversight groups require that the professional performance of radiologists be evaluated on an ongoing basis. Although the diagnostic accuracy of radiologists is routinely measured at most institutions by means of peer review processes, systems for evaluating procedural competency are not widely available. Consequently, technical skills are seldom, if ever, evaluated or managed. The key elements of a system for evaluating procedural competency include the following: (a) clear definition of all elements of a transparent evaluation process; (b) definition of standards for training and credentialing and options for maintenance of competency certification in interventional procedures; (c) collection and analysis of process and outcomes metrics; (d) multisource feedback on procedural, patient care, and safety skills; and (e) an effective, anonymous process for managing radiologists in whom deficiencies are identified. Although no ideal system for evaluating procedural competency currently exists, inclusion of these elements goes a long way toward facilitating the introduction of a simple process for providing appropriate feedback to procedural radiologists, acknowledging excellence, and identifying and managing deficiencies if they occur.

Evaluation of Cancer Patients With Suspected Pulmonary Embolism: Performance of the American College of Physicians Guideline.

BACKGROUND: Accurate risk stratification of pulmonary embolism (PE) can reduce unnecessary imaging. We investigated the extent to which the American College of Physicians (ACP) guideline for evaluation of patients with suspected PE could be applied to cancer patients in the emergency department of a comprehensive cancer center. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from cancer patients who underwent CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA) between August 1, 2015, and October 31, 2015, were collected. We assessed each patient's diagnostic workup for its adherence to the ACP guideline in terms of clinical risk stratification and age-adjusted d-dimer level and the degree to which these factors were associated with PE. RESULTS: Of the 380 patients identified, 213 (56%) underwent CTPA indicated per the ACP guideline, and 78 (21%) underwent CTPA not indicated per the guideline. Only one of the patients who underwent nonindicated CTPA had a PE. Fifty-seven patients underwent unnecessary d-dimer evaluation, and 71 patients with negative d-dimer test results underwent nonindicated CTPA. PEs were found in 6 of 108 (6%) low-risk patients, 22 of 219 (10%) intermediate-risk patients, and 13 of 53 (25%) high-risk patients. The ACP guideline had negative predictive value of 99% (95% confidence interval: 93%-100%) and sensitivity of 97% (95% confidence interval: 86%-100%) in predicting PE. CONCLUSION: The ACP guideline has good sensitivity for detecting PE in cancer patients and thus can be applied in this population. Compliance with the ACP guideline when evaluating cancer patients with suspected PE could reduce the use of unnecessary imaging and laboratory studies.

Time Is Not on Our Side: How Radiology Practices Should Manage Customer Queues.

As health care shifts toward patient-centered care, wait times have received increasing scrutiny as an important metric for patient satisfaction. Long queues form when radiology practices inefficiently service their customers, leading to customer dissatisfaction and a lower perception of value. This article describes a four-step framework for radiology practices to resolve problematic queues: (1) analyze factors contributing to queue formation; (2) improve processes to reduce service times; (3) reduce variability; (4) address the psychology of queues.

Use of an Online Education Platform to Enhance Patients' Knowledge About Radiation in Diagnostic Imaging.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the impact of a digital interactive education platform and standard paper-based education on patients' knowledge regarding ionizing radiation. METHODS: Beginning in January 2015, patients at a tertiary cancer center scheduled for diagnostic imaging procedures were randomized to receive information about ionizing radiation delivered through a web-based interactive education platform (interactive education group), the same information in document format (document education group), or no specialized education (control group). Patients who completed at least some education and control group patients were invited to complete a knowledge assessment; interactive education patients were invited to provide feedback about satisfaction with their experience. RESULTS: A total of 2,226 patients participated. Surveys were completed by 302 of 745 patients (40.5%) participating in interactive education, 488 of 993 (49.1%) participating in document education, and 363 of 488 (74.4%) in the control group. Patients in the interactive education group were significantly more likely to say that they knew the definition of ionizing radiation, outperformed the other groups in identifying which imaging examinations used ionizing radiation, were significantly more likely to identify from a list which imaging modality had the highest radiation dose, and tended to perform better when asked about the tissue effects of radiation in diagnostic imaging, although this difference was not significant. In the interactive education group, 84% of patients were satisfied with the experience, and 79% said that they would recommend the program. CONCLUSIONS: Complex information on a highly technical subject with personal implications for patients may be conveyed more effectively using electronic platforms, and this approach is well accepted.

Quality and Value of Subspecialty Reinterpretation of Thoracic CT Scans of Patients Referred to a Tertiary Cancer Center.

INTRODUCTION: Patients referred to tertiary cancer centers often present with imaging studies performed and interpreted at other health care institutions. Although reinterpretation of imaging performed at another health care institution can reduce repeat imaging, unnecessary radiation dose, and cost, the benefit is uncertain. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the quality of initial imaging studies of patients seeking a second opinion at a tertiary cancer center, to compare the accuracy of initial interpretations to reinterpretations performed by subspecialty trained radiologists at a tertiary oncologic center, and to determine the potential impact on patient management. METHODS: An institutional review board-approved retrospective, single-institution database review was performed in 120 new patients presenting to the thoracic surgery clinics at our institution from 2010 through 2013, with initial chest CTs performed at another institution. Two thoracic radiologists blinded to the interpretation independently assessed the quality and performed a reinterpretation of 52 CTs. Fisher's exact tests were used to compare the frequency with which clinically important staging parameters appeared in the reinterpretations and initial reports. Discrepancies between the reinterpretations and initial interpretations were adjudicated independently by two thoracic radiologists at different tertiary cancer institutions to determine which interpretations were more accurate. The impact of discrepancies on clinical management was evaluated based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. RESULTS: Of the 52 CTs, 32 (62%) were of inadequate image quality for staging. In 17 of 52 (33%), discrepancies were identified between reinterpretations and initial interpretations. For discrepancies, the reinterpretation was judged to be more accurate for staging than the initial interpretation. In nine of these patients, staging parameters were omitted in the initial interpretations that precluded adequate staging. In the remaining eight patients, six were upstaged, one was downstaged, and one was unchanged by the reinterpretation. CONCLUSIONS: Imaging studies from outside institutions are of variable image quality and often not adequate for appropriate staging of thoracic malignancies. Reinterpretation can decrease repeat imaging and associated technical costs. Additionally, the accuracy of staging is improved by reinterpretation of CTs by subspecialty trained radiologists and can significantly impact clinical management.

Efficacy of a Self-expanding Tract Sealant Device in the Reduction of Pneumothorax and Chest Tube Placement Rates After Percutaneous Lung Biopsy: A Matched Controlled Study Using Propensity Score Analysis.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the use of a self-expanding tract sealant device (BioSentry™) on the rates of pneumothorax and chest tube insertion after percutaneous lung biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective study, we compared 318 patients who received BioSentry™ during percutaneous lung biopsy (treated group) with 1956 patients who did not (control group). Patient-, lesion-, and procedure-specific variables, and pneumothorax and chest tube insertion rates were recorded. To adjust for potential selection bias, patients in the treated group were matched 1:1 to patients in the control group using propensity score matching based on the above-mentioned variables. Patients were considered a match if the absolute difference in their propensity scores was ≤equal to 0.02. RESULTS: Before matching, the pneumothorax and chest tube rates were 24.5 and 13.1% in the control group, and 21.1 and 8.5% in the treated group, respectively. Using propensity scores, a match was found for 317 patients in the treatment group. Chi-square contingency matched pair analysis showed the treated group had significantly lower pneumothorax (20.8 vs. 32.8%; p = 0.001) and chest tube (8.2 vs. 20.8%; p < 0.0001) rates compared to the control group. Sub-analysis including only faculty who had >30 cases of both treatment and control cases demonstrated similar findings: the treated group had significantly lower pneumothorax (17.6 vs. 30.2%; p = 0.002) and chest tube (7.2 vs. 18%; p = 0.001) rates. CONCLUSIONS: The self-expanding tract sealant device significantly reduced the pneumothorax rate, and more importantly, the chest tube placement rate after percutaneous lung biopsy.

Oncology Patient Perceptions of the Use of Ionizing Radiation in Diagnostic Imaging.

PURPOSE: To measure the knowledge of oncology patients regarding use and potential risks of ionizing radiation in diagnostic imaging. METHODS: A 30-question survey was developed and e-mailed to 48,736 randomly selected patients who had undergone a diagnostic imaging study at a comprehensive cancer center between November 1, 2013 and January 31, 2014. The survey was designed to measure patients' knowledge about use of ionizing radiation in diagnostic imaging and attitudes about radiation. Nonresponse bias was quantified by sending an abbreviated survey to patients who did not respond to the original survey. RESULTS: Of the 48,736 individuals who were sent the initial survey, 9,098 (18.7%) opened it, and 5,462 (11.2%) completed it. A total of 21.7% of respondents reported knowing the definition of ionizing radiation; 35.1% stated correctly that CT used ionizing radiation; and 29.4% stated incorrectly that MRI used ionizing radiation. Many respondents did not understand risks from exposure to diagnostic doses of ionizing radiation: Of 3,139 respondents who believed that an abdominopelvic CT scan carried risk, 1,283 (40.9%) believed sterility was a risk; 669 (21.3%) believed heritable mutations were a risk; 657 (20.9%) believed acute radiation sickness was a risk; and 135 (4.3%) believed cataracts were a risk. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients and caregivers do not possess basic knowledge regarding the use of ionizing radiation in oncologic diagnostic imaging. To ensure health literacy and high-quality patient decision making, efforts to educate patients and caregivers should be increased. Such education might begin with information about effects that are not risks of diagnostic imaging.

Why bundled payments could drive innovation: an example from interventional oncology.

Some have suggested that the current fee-for-service health care payment system in the United States stifles innovation. However, there are few published examples supporting this concept. We implemented an innovative temporary balloon occlusion technique for yttrium 90 radioembolization of nonresectable liver cancer. Although our balloon occlusion technique was associated with similar patient outcomes, lower cost, and faster procedure times compared with the standard-of-care coil embolization technique, our technique failed to gain widespread acceptance. Financial analysis revealed that because the balloon occlusion technique avoided a procedural step associated with a lucrative Current Procedural Terminology billing code, this new technique resulted in a significant decrease in hospital and physician revenue in the current fee-for-service payment system, even though the new technique would provide a revenue enhancement through cost savings in a bundled payment system. Our analysis illustrates how in a fee-for-service payment system, financial disincentives can stifle innovation and advancement of health care delivery.