Use of Public Data to Target Variation in Providers' Use of CT and MR Imaging among Medicare Beneficiaries.

PURPOSE: To examine geographic variation in providers' use of diagnostic imaging to identify potential targets for quality improvement initiatives after adjusting for imaging referral across hospital referral regions (HRRs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using two Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services datasets, the authors included all claims for beneficiaries enrolled in the Medicare fee-for-service program. Diagnostic imaging procedures were selected on the basis of common procedure coding system codes, excluding interventional procedures. The authors assessed providers' use of imaging for each HRR after creating an imaging referral index (IRI) to adjust for imaging referral rates across HRRs. Relative risk statistics were used to assess geographic variation. The authors calculated two imaging measures for computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging: IRI-adjusted utilization intensity (number of examinations per 1000 beneficiaries) and total payments (in dollars, after deducting deductibles and coinsurances) in each HRR. High-impact regions were defined as those in the highest deciles for both imaging intensity and payment. RESULTS: For 34 million Medicare beneficiaries, 124 million unique diagnostic imaging services (totaling $5.6 billion) were performed in 2012. The average adjusted CT utilization intensity ranged from 330.4 studies per 1000 beneficiaries in the lowest decile to 684.0 in the highest decile (relative risk, 2.1); adjusted MR imaging utilization intensity varied from 105.7 studies per 1000 beneficiaries to 256.3 (relative risk, 2.4). The most common CT and MR imaging procedures were head CT and lumbar spine MR imaging. CONCLUSION: With use of public data, the authors identified a wide variation in imaging use across the United States. Potential targets for future imaging quality improvement initiatives include head CT and lumbar spine MR imaging.

Radiology utilization in the emergency department: trends of the past 2 decades.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to assess radiology utilization trends for emergency department (ED) patients from 1993 through 2012. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For this retrospective study, we reviewed radiology utilization at a 793-bed quaternary care academic medical center from January 1, 1993, through December 31, 2012, during which time the number of ED patient visits increased from approximately 48,000 to 61,000, and determined the number of imaging studies by modality (radiography, sonography, CT, MRI, other) and associated relative value units (RVUs). We used linear regression to assess for trends in the number of imaging RVUs and imaging accession numbers, our primary and secondary outcomes, respectively. RESULTS: The total RVUs attributable to ED imaging per 1000 ED visits increased 208% from 1993 to 2007 (p < 0.0001) and then decreased 24.7% by 2012 (p = 0.0019). The total number of imaging accession numbers per 1000 ED visits increased 47.8% from 1993 until 2005 (p = 0.0003) and then decreased 26.9% by 2012 (p < 0.0001). CT RVUs per 1000 ED visits increased 493% until 2007 (p < 0.0001) and then decreased 33.4% (p < 0.0001), and MRI RVUs increased 2475% until 2008 (p < 0.0001) and then decreased 20.6% (p < 0.0032). Sonography RVUs increased 75.7% over the study period (p < 0.0001), whereas radiography RVUs decreased 28.1% (p = 0.0009). CONCLUSION: After a period of substantial increase from 1993 to 2007, volume-adjusted ED imaging RVUs declined from 2007 through 2012, largely because of the decreasing use of CT and MRI. Additional studies are needed to determine the causes of this decline, which may include quality improvement activities, advocacy for appropriateness by leadership, concerns regarding radiation exposure and cost, and health information technology interventions.

Augmenting the impact of technology adoption with financial incentive to improve radiology report signature times.

PURPOSE: Radiology report signature time (ST) can be a substantial component of total report turnaround time. Poor turnaround time resulting from lengthy ST can adversely affect patient care. The combination of technology adoption with financial incentive was evaluated to determine if ST improvement can be augmented and sustained. METHODS: This prospective study was performed at a 751-bed, urban, tertiary care adult teaching hospital. Test-site imaging volume approximated 48,000 examinations per month. The radiology department has 100 trainees and 124 attending radiologists serving multiple institutions. Over a study period of 4 years and 4 months, three interventions focused on radiologist signature performance were implemented: 1) a notification paging application that alerted radiologists when reports were ready for signature, 2) a picture archiving and communications systems (PACS)-integrated speech recognition report generation system, and 3) a departmental financial incentive to reward radiologists semiannually for ST performance. Signature time was compared before and after the interventions. Wilcoxon and linear regression statistical analyses were used to assess the significance of trends. RESULTS: Technology adoption (paging plus speech recognition) reduced median ST from >5 to <1 hour (P < .001) and 80th-percentile ST from >24 to 15 to 18 hours (P < .001). Subsequent addition of a financial incentive further improved 80th-percentile ST to 4 to 8 hours (P < .001). The gains in median and 80th-percentile ST were sustained over the final 31 months of the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Technology interventions coupled with financial incentive can result in synergistic and sustainable improvement in radiologist report-signing behavior. The addition of a financial incentive leads to better performance than that achievable through technology alone.

Practice management performance indicators in academic radiology departments.

PURPOSE: To determine the management performance indicators most frequently utilized in academic radiology departments in the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This investigation met the criteria for an exemption from institutional review board approval. A cross-sectional study in which a validated national survey was sent to members of the Society of Chairmen of Academic Radiology Departments (SCARD) was conducted. The survey was designed to examine the following six categories of 28 performance indicators: (a) general organization, (b) volume and productivity, (c) radiology reporting, (d) access to examinations, (e) customer satisfaction, and (f) finance. A total of 158 variables were included in the analysis. Summary statistics, the chi(2) test, rank correlation, multiple regression analysis, and analysis of variance were used. RESULTS: A response rate of 42% (55 of 132 SCARD members) was achieved. The mean number of performance indicators used by radiology departments was 16 +/- 6.35 (standard deviation). The most frequently utilized performance indicators were as follows: (a) productivity, in terms of examination volume (78% [43 departments]) and examination volume per modality (78% [43 departments]); (b) reporting, in terms of report turnaround (82% [45 departments]) and transcription time (71% [39 departments]); (c) access, in terms of appointment access to magnetic resonance imaging (80% [44 departments]); (d) satisfaction, in terms of number of patient complaints (84% [46 departments]); and (e) finance, in terms of expenses (67% [37 departments]). Regression analysis revealed that the numbers of performance indicators in each category were statistically significant in predicting the total number of performance indicators used (P < .001 for all). Numbers of productivity and financial indicators were moderately correlated (r = 0.51). However, there were no statistically significant correlations between the numbers of performance indicators used and hospital location, hospital size, or department size (P > .4 for all). CONCLUSION: Assessing departmental performance with a wide range of management indicators is not yet an established and standardized practice in academic radiology departments in the United States. Among all indicators, productivity indicators are the most frequently used.

Motivation and compensation in academic radiology.

As radiologists are increasingly faced with the challenges of rising demand for imaging services and staff shortages, the implementation of incentive plans in radiology is gaining importance. A key factor to be considered while developing an incentive plan is the strategic goal of the department. In academic radiology, management should decide whether it will reward research and teaching productivity in addition to clinical productivity. Various models have been suggested for incentive plans based on (1) clinical productivity, (2) multifactor productivity, (3) individual productivity, (4) section productivity, and (5) chair's discretion. Although fiscal rewards are most common, managers should consider other incentives, such as research time, resources for research, vacation time, and recognition awards, because academic radiologists may be motivated by factors other than financial gains.

Assessment and validation of imaging methods and technologies.

In summary, the group identified many challenges and opportunities facing those wishing to conduct rigorous assessment and validation of imaging technologies. Specific needs and recommendations were outlined by the group. Overall, it was felt that the field has made great progress in the past several years, and that the future is promising.