A Road Map to Foster Wellness and Engagement in Our Workplace-A Report of the 2018 Summer Intersociety Meeting.

The 2018 radiology Intersociety Committee reviewed the current state of stress and burnout in our workplaces and identified approaches for fostering engagement, wellness, and job satisfaction. In addition to emphasizing the importance of personal wellness (the fourth aim of health care), the major focus of the meeting was to identify strategies and themes to mitigate the frequency, manifestations, and impact of stress. Strategies include reducing the stigma of burnout, minimizing isolation through community building and fostering connectivity, utilizing data and benchmarking to guide effectiveness of improvement efforts, resourcing and training "wellness" committees, acknowledging value contributions of team members, and improving efficiency in the workplace. Four themes were identified to prioritize organizational efforts: (1) collecting, analyzing, and benchmarking data; (2) developing effective leadership; (3) building high-functioning teams; and (4) amplifying our voice to increase our influence.

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.

Root Cause Analysis: Learning from Adverse Safety Events.

Serious adverse events continue to occur in clinical practice, despite our best preventive efforts. It is essential that radiologists, both as individuals and as a part of organizations, learn from such events and make appropriate changes to decrease the likelihood that such events will recur. Root cause analysis (RCA) is a process to (a) identify factors that underlie variation in performance or that predispose an event toward undesired outcomes and (b) allow for development of effective strategies to decrease the likelihood of similar adverse events occurring in the future. An RCA process should be performed within the environment of a culture of safety, focusing on underlying system contributors and, in a confidential manner, taking into account the emotional effects on the staff involved. The Joint Commission now requires that a credible RCA be performed within 45 days for all sentinel or major adverse events, emphasizing the need for all radiologists to understand the processes with which an effective RCA can be performed. Several RCA-related tools that have been found to be useful in the radiology setting include the "five whys" approach to determine causation; cause-and-effect, or Ishikawa, diagrams; causal tree mapping; affinity diagrams; and Pareto charts.

Metrics for Radiologists in the Era of Value-based Health Care Delivery.

Accelerated by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, health care delivery in the United States is poised to move from a model that rewards the volume of services provided to one that rewards the value provided by such services. Radiology department operations are currently managed by an array of metrics that assess various departmental missions, but many of these metrics do not measure value. Regulators and other stakeholders also influence what metrics are used to assess medical imaging. Metrics such as the Physician Quality Reporting System are increasingly being linked to financial penalties. In addition, metrics assessing radiology's contribution to cost or outcomes are currently lacking. In fact, radiology is widely viewed as a contributor to health care costs without an adequate understanding of its contribution to downstream cost savings or improvement in patient outcomes. The new value-based system of health care delivery and reimbursement will measure a provider's contribution to reducing costs and improving patient outcomes with the intention of making reimbursement commensurate with adherence to these metrics. The authors describe existing metrics and their application to the practice of radiology, discuss the so-called value equation, and suggest possible metrics that will be useful for demonstrating the value of radiologists' services to their patients.

Strategic planning and radiology practice management in the new health care environment.

Current comprehensive health care reform in the United States demands that policy makers, insurers, providers, and patients work in reshaping the health care system to deliver care that is both more affordable and of higher quality. A tectonic shift is under way that runs contrary to the traditional goal of radiology groups to perform and interpret large numbers of imaging examinations. In fact, radiology service requisitions now must be evaluated for their appropriateness, possibly resulting in a reduction in the number of imaging studies performed. To be successful, radiology groups will have to restructure their business practices and strategies to align with the emerging health care paradigm. This article outlines a four-stage strategic framework that has aided corporations in achieving their goals and that can be readily adapted and applied by radiologists. The four stages are (a) definition and articulation of a purpose, (b) clear definition of strategic goals, (c) prioritization of specific strategic enablers, and (d) implementation of processes for tracking progress and enabling continuous adaptation. The authors provide practical guidance for applying specific tools such as analyses of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (so-called SWOT analyses), prioritization matrices, and balanced scorecards to accomplish each stage. By adopting and applying these tools within the strategic framework outlined, radiology groups can position themselves to succeed in the evolving health care environment.

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.

Application of failure mode and effect analysis in a radiology department.

With increasing deployment, complexity, and sophistication of equipment and related processes within the clinical imaging environment, system failures are more likely to occur. These failures may have varying effects on the patient, ranging from no harm to devastating harm. Failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) is a tool that permits the proactive identification of possible failures in complex processes and provides a basis for continuous improvement. This overview of the basic principles and methodology of FMEA provides an explanation of how FMEA can be applied to clinical operations in a radiology department to reduce, predict, or prevent errors. The six sequential steps in the FMEA process are explained, and clinical magnetic resonance imaging services are used as an example for which FMEA is particularly applicable. A modified version of traditional FMEA called Healthcare Failure Mode and Effect Analysis, which was introduced by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs National Center for Patient Safety, is briefly reviewed. In conclusion, FMEA is an effective and reliable method to proactively examine complex processes in the radiology department. FMEA can be used to highlight the high-risk subprocesses and allows these to be targeted to minimize the future occurrence of failures, thus improving patient safety and streamlining the efficiency of the radiology department.

Quality initiatives: anatomy and pathophysiology of errors occurring in clinical radiology practice.

The Joint Commission requires development of comprehensive error detection systems that incorporate root cause analyses for all sentinel events. To prevent medical errors from occurring, there is a need for a readily available and easy-to-implement system for detecting, classifying, and managing mistakes. The wide spectrum of interrelated contributing factors makes the classification of errors difficult. Contributors to and causes of radiologic errors can be classified under latent and active failures. Latent failures include technical and system-related failures, with a radiology-specific subgroup of communication failures that includes documentation, inaccurate or incomplete information, and communication loop failures. Active failures may be ascribed to human failures (more specifically failure of execution of a task, inadequate planning, or behavior-related failures), patient-based failures, and external failures. Classification of an error should also include the impact of the error on the patient, staff, other customers, and radiology practice. Further considerations should include nonmedical impact of the error, including legal, social, and economic effects on both the patient and the system. Rather than focusing the investigation on blaming individuals for active failures, the primary effort should be to discover latent system failures that can be remedied at a departmental level. Such an error classification system will decrease the likelihood of future errors and diminish their adverse impact.

Quality initiatives: quality improvement grand rounds at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center: CT colonography performance review after an adverse event.

As computed tomographic (CT) colonography is being used increasingly in clinical practice, an effective quality improvement process must be ensured. The quality improvement process is outlined for the reader by using an adverse event during CT colonography as an example. Components of this process are the approach to a sentinel event, performance of a root cause analysis, and development of strategies for minimizing errors after a serious adverse event. Important factors include indications and contraindications for the examination, proper imaging technique, training of personnel, complications of the procedure, and legal implications. Complications from CT colonography are rare. Attention must be paid to the correct technique for colonic insufflation, particularly in older patients and those who are symptomatic. Root cause analysis provides valuable tools for identification and implementation of improvements designed to avoid similar and other adverse events and to minimize damage.

Managing an acute adverse event in a radiology department.

Many local and national regulatory organizations require that all serious adverse events be promptly investigated, managed, and reported, with the first goal being to institute actions to prevent or minimize the occurrence of similar events. However, the tools and processes necessary for effective incident review and management have been developed largely by industrial organizations, and radiologists may not be familiar with such processes. Data analysis requires a root cause analysis to identify all possible active and latent contributors to the event, as well as the use of algorithms to determine the degree of responsibility when human error is implicated. Acceptable corrective actions that are reasonable, achievable, and measurable should be instituted. These changes should be monitored according to defined timelines by a designated person. In some cases, additional training or even remediation may be required. Subsequently, the focus should be on actively managing and improving error detection and reporting systems, as well as on seeking strategies for minimizing the occurrence of preventable errors.

Comprehensive preoperative assessment of pancreatic adenocarcinoma with 64-section volumetric CT.

Pancreatic adenocarcinoma is a common gastrointestinal malignancy that has a poor prognosis and for which successful surgical resection is the only method of cure. Preoperative staging and assessment can be performed with a number of modalities. Multidetector (64-section) volumetric computed tomography (CT) allows rapid anatomic coverage coupled with excellent spatial resolution. Understanding the technical parameters necessary for successful pancreatic CT angiography is crucial. Carefully timed scan acquisition maximizes the difference in attenuation between the neoplasm and the pancreatic parenchyma and allows accurate local and distant staging as well as assessment of local resectability. In addition, angiographic data sets can be rendered to create displays of the local venous and arterial anatomy that are familiar to surgeons. Advanced rendering can also be used to create pancreaticographic type images. The TNM system of staging for pancreatic adenocarcinoma is not frequently included in radiology reporting but is important for deciding on optimal therapy and neoadjuvant therapy.

Implementation of online radiology quality assurance reporting system for performance improvement: initial evaluation.

PURPOSE: To evaluate an online system developed and implemented for reporting and managing quality assurance (QA) events occurring in a radiology department. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This HIPAA-compliant study had institutional review board approval; informed consent was not required. Using repeated plan-do-study-act cycles, a radiology quality management team applied a 10-step process to implement an online reporting system. The system permits remote submission of cases by staff members. The number of weekly submissions to the system over a 9-month period was evaluated and compared with that for the preceding 6 months by using the Mann-Whitney test. Sources and nature of data, actions initiated, and final outcomes were also analyzed. Recorded data included forum of discussion, dimension of care, action items, monitoring of follow-up and compliance, and notification status. RESULTS: During the first 9 months of implementation, 605 cases were submitted (mean, 21.4 cases per week), a significant increase (P < .005) compared with the preceding 6 months (mean, 3.2 cases per week). Cases, which were submitted by residents (121 cases [20.0%]), fellows (94 cases [15.5%]), faculty members (319 cases [52.7%]), or technologists (54 cases [8.9%]), reported technical (33.1%) or administrative (8.0%) issues. The 329 clinical cases (54.4%) included 60 errors in communication (18.2%), 67 errors in interpretation (20.4%), 78 diagnostic delays (23.7%), 99 missed diagnoses (30.1%), and 54 procedural complications (16.4%); some cases were in more than one category. Twenty-three cases (3.8%) resulted in submission-related QA projects, and 69 cases (11.4%) resulted in individuals or sections of the hospital undergoing additional training. CONCLUSION: A secure online QA reporting system promotes reporting of QA events and serves as a database for identifying and managing trends, initiating performance improvement projects, and providing feedback to staff members who submit cases.

Science to practice: Will improved assessment of response to antiangiogenic therapies be achieved with contrast-enhanced gray-scale US?

McCarville et al have used gray-scale contrast-enhanced low-mechanical-index, and thus non-bubble-destructive, continuous US to quantitate tumor blood flow in mouse tumors engineered to simulate antiangiogenic therapy. They have shown that contrast-enhanced gray-scale US, unlike power or color Doppler US performed without contrast enhancement, is better able to depict and distinguish microvascular flow in subcutaneously implanted mouse tumors possessing different vascular phenotypes.