Program for Supporting Frontline Improvement Projects in an Academic Radiology Department.

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to describe the results of an ongoing program implemented in an academic radiology department to support the execution of small- to medium-size improvement projects led by frontline staff and leaders. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Staff members were assigned a coach, were instructed in improvement methods, were given time to work on the project, and presented progress to department leaders in weekly 30-minute reports. Estimated costs and outcomes were calculated for each project and aggregated. An anonymous survey was administered to participants at the end of the first year. RESULTS. A total of 73 participants completed 102 projects in the first 2 years of the program. The project type mix included 25 quality improvement projects, 22 patient satisfaction projects, 14 staff engagement projects, 27 efficiency improvement projects, and 14 regulatory compliance and readiness projects. Estimated annualized outcomes included approximately 4500 labor hours saved, $315K in supply cost savings, $42.2M in potential increased revenues, 8- and 2-point increase in top-box patient experience scores at two clinics, and a 60-incident reduction in near-miss safety events. Participant time equated to approximately 0.35 full-time equivalent positions per year. Approximately 0.4 full-time equivalent was required to support the program. Survey results indicated that the participants generally viewed the program favorably. CONCLUSION. The program was successful in providing a platform for simultaneously solving a large number of organizational problems while also providing a positive experience to frontline personnel.

A Multicenter Survey on the Trend of Chest CT Scan Utilization: Tracing the First Footsteps of COVID-19 in Iran.

BACKGROUND: Chest computed tomography (CT) scan has been used widely to diagnose COVID-19 in Iran. OBJECTIVES: To trace the footsteps of COVID-19 in Iran by exploring the trend in using chest CT scans and its economic impact on radiology departments. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, the number of imaging examinations from 33 tertiary radiology departments in 9 large cities of Iran was collected from September 23, 2019 to March 20, 2020 (Months 1 to 6) and the corresponding months in 2018-2019. RESULTS: A 50.2% increase was noted in the chest CT scan utilization in 2019-2020 compared to 2018-2019. This increase was +15%, +15%, +27%, +2%, +1% in Months 1-5 of 2019-2020, respectively. In Month 6 of 2019-2020, a 251% increase in the acquisition of chest CT scans was observed compared to the Month 6 of 2018-2019. Following negative balance of revenue from Month 1 to 5 with respect to the inflation rate, the total income in Month 6 was further 1.5% less than the same Month in 2018-19. CONCLUSION: The observed peak in chest CT utilization in Month 3 prior to the surge in Month 6 could be explained by the seasonal influenza. However, unawareness about an emerging viral disease, i.e. COVID-19, might have underutilized chest CT in Months 4 and 5 before the official announcement in Month 6. The unbalanced increase in the workload of radiology departments in the shortage of cardiothoracic radiologists with the simultaneous decrease in income initiated a vicious cycle that worsened the economic repercussions of the pandemic.

Impact of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic on Imaging Case Volumes.

OBJECTIVE: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had significant economic impact on radiology with markedly decreased imaging case volumes. The purpose of this study was to quantify the imaging volumes during the COVID-19 pandemic across patient service locations and imaging modality types. METHODS: Imaging case volumes in a large health care system were retrospectively studied, analyzing weekly imaging volumes by patient service locations (emergency department, inpatient, outpatient) and modality types (x-ray, mammography, CT, MRI, ultrasound, interventional radiology, nuclear medicine) in years 2020 and 2019. The data set was split to compare pre-COVID-19 (weeks 1-9) and post-COVID-19 (weeks 10-16) periods. Independent-samples t tests compared the mean weekly volumes in 2020 and 2019. RESULTS: Total imaging volume in 2020 (weeks 1-16) declined by 12.29% (from 522,645 to 458,438) compared with 2019. Post-COVID-19 (weeks 10-16) revealed a greater decrease (28.10%) in imaging volumes across all patient service locations (range 13.60%-56.59%) and modality types (range 14.22%-58.42%). Total mean weekly volume in 2020 post-COVID-19 (24,383 [95% confidence interval 19,478-29,288]) was statistically reduced (P = .003) compared with 33,913 [95% confidence interval 33,429-34,396] in 2019 across all patient service locations and modality types. The greatest decline in 2020 was seen at week 16 specifically for outpatient imaging (88%) affecting all modality types: mammography (94%), nuclear medicine (85%), MRI (74%), ultrasound (64%), interventional (56%), CT (46%), and x-ray (22%). DISCUSSION: Because the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic remains uncertain, these results may assist in guiding short- and long-term practice decisions based on the magnitude of imaging volume decline across different patient service locations and specific imaging modality types.

Using Quality Improvement Methodology to Reduce Costs while Improving Efficiency and Provider Satisfaction in a Busy, Academic Musculoskeletal Radiology Division.

Within an everchanging healthcare system, continuous evaluation of standard operating procedures must be performed to ensure optimization of system level organization, communication, and efficiency. Using the Lean management approach, our institution introduced modifications to our musculoskeletal (MSK) radiology workflow in order to facilitate beneficial change that improved clinical workflow efficiency, reduced moonlighting costs, and improved radiologist satisfaction without sacrificing quality of care. The scope of our study included the MSK division of adult inpatient and outpatient populations at three hospitals in a single academic medical center. A root cause analysis was executed to determine the causative factors contributing to clinical inefficiency. Five main factors were identified, and appropriate countermeasures were introduced. Efficiency was measured via the turnaround time (TAT) for radiographic examinations, measured from exam completion to final report submission. Moonlighting expenses were monitored for the fiscal year in which the modifications were implemented. Surveys were administered to MSK radiologists before and after the countermeasures were introduced to determine subjective ratings of efficiency and satisfaction. The average TAT within our MSK division decreased from 40 h to 12 h after introducing changes to our workflow. During one fiscal year, moonlighting expenses decreased from $26,000 to $5000. Post-study survey results indicated increased efficiency of and satisfaction with our implemented modifications to the scheduling and clinical workflow. Optimization of our radiology department's workflow led to increased productivity, efficiency, and radiologist satisfaction, as well as a reduction in moonlighting costs. This project leveraged Lean management principles to combat clinical inefficiency, waste time, and high costs.

Recommendations for additional imaging of abdominal imaging examinations: frequency, benefit, and cost.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the frequency, determinants, clinical implications, and costs of recommendations for additional imaging (RAIs) in secondary interpretations of abdominal imaging examinations. METHODS: This retrospective study included 2225 abdominal imaging examinations from outside institutions that were reinterpreted as part of standard clinical care at a tertiary care center in a one-year time frame. RESULTS: Two hundred forty-six RAIs were present in 231 of 2225 reports (10.4%) of secondary abdominal imaging interpretations. Patient age and experience of the radiologist who performed the secondary interpretation were independently significantly associated with the presence of an RAI (both p = 0.002), with odds ratios of 0.99 per year increase in patient age (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.98-1.00) and 1.06 per year increase in experience of the radiologist (95% CI, 1.02-1.10). If followed, RAIs changed clinical management in 31.2%. Total costs of all 246 RAIs, whether performed or not by the referring physicians, amounted to €71,032.21, thus resulting in €31.92 per secondary abdominal imaging interpretation. Total costs of the 140 RAIs that were actually performed by the referring physicians amounted to €42,683.08, resulting in €19.18 per secondary abdominal imaging interpretation. CONCLUSIONS: The frequency of RAIs in reports of secondary interpretations of abdominal imaging examinations (which appear to be affected by patients' age and radiologists' experience) and associated costs are non-negligible. However, RAIs not infrequently change clinical management. The presented data may be helpful to radiology departments and healthcare policy makers to make well-informed decisions on the value and facilitation of the practice of secondary interpretations. KEY POINTS: • Frequency of recommendations for additional imaging (RAIs) in secondary interpretations of abdominal imaging examinations at a tertiary care center is approximately 10.4%. • RAIs appear to be more frequently issued in younger patients and by more experienced radiologists, and if followed by referring clinicians, change clinical management in about one third of cases. • RAI costs per secondary interpretation in the Dutch Healthcare system are €31.92 (considering all RAIs) or €19.18 (considering only those RAIs that are actually performed).

The Incentive Dilemma: Intrinsic Motivation and Workplace Performance.

Incentive plans are a core component of many radiology positions and are often considered a major factor in the ability to recruit and retain high-performing radiologists. Financial incentives are widely thought to be effective at motivating individuals, but there is considerable evidence to the contrary. In this report, the authors examine basic assumptions about financial incentives and debate the potential negative impact of financial incentive systems on performance at radiology practices.

Costs of Quality and Safety in Radiology.

With the movement toward at-risk population health management-related payment models, a core factor for the success and survival of health care organizations has become understanding and decreasing costs. In medical specialties such as radiology, understanding models for procedure-based costing will become increasingly important. Using bottom-up models for procedure-based costing, such as time-driven activity-based costing, is more advantageous than using the inaccurate ratio of costs to charges approach; however, these approaches are more resource intensive when compared to top-down approaches. Understanding the costs of quality is also important for creating an accounting and budgeting process that reflects the total cost of quality. The costs of quality are divided into two main categories: the cost of control (also referred to as the costs of conformance) and the costs of failure of control (also referred to as the costs of nonconformance). The costs of control are the expenditures that occur to ensure quality. The costs of noncontrol are the expenses that arise from the lack of quality and safety. The cost of control has two subcategories: prevention costs and appraisal costs. The cost of noncontrol also has two subcategories: internal failure costs and external failure costs. Adopting a mind-set that takes into account the costs of control, or the costs to ensure high-quality care, and the costs of noncontrol, or the hidden costs of poor-quality care, will be essential for successful health care organizations in the future. ©RSNA, 2018.

Radiologist Professional Payments After Mitigation of CMS's Multiple-Procedure Payment Reduction Initiatives.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess the potential impact of ACR evidence-based advocacy on radiologist professional reimbursement from individual-provider CMS multiple-procedure payment reduction (MPPR) initiatives. METHODS: CMS Physician and Other Supplier Public Use Files and 5% research-identifiable file carrier claims files from 2012 through 2014 were used to identify individual-provider MPPR-eligible services for radiologists (group practice linking unavailability in either dataset precluded quantification of different provider discounting) and then compare actual payments to Medicare Physician Fee Schedule national professional reimbursement rates to identify MPPR-discounted services. Payments attributed to MPPR-affected services and average radiologist annual MPPR discounts were calculated to estimate incremental individual radiologist payment restoration as a result of evidence-based advocacy. RESULTS: Between 2012 and 2014, a mean of 803 to 836 advanced imaging services per radiologist were potentially affected by individual-provider MPPR discounting. Approximately 23% of these services were discounted by individual-provider MPPR, resulting in approximately $2,524 to $2,893 lost per radiologist per year. The MPPR rollback from 25% to 5% is thus estimated to return $55 million to $64 million to radiologists each year for the individual component of MPPR alone. CONCLUSIONS: Individual-provider MPPR discounting resulted, on average, in more than $2,500 in lost payments per radiologist per year. Its rollback, associated with ACR evidence-based advocacy efforts, is estimated to return well over $50 million in Medicare professional payments to radiologists each year for individual-component MPPR discounting alone.

Code Conversion Impact Factor and Cash Flow Impact of International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, on a Large Multihospital Radiology Practice.

PURPOSE: The 2015 conversion of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) system from the ninth revision (ICD-9) to the 10th revision (ICD-10) was widely projected to adversely impact physician practices. We aimed to assess code conversion impact factor (CCIF) projections and revenue delay impact to help radiology groups better prepare for eventual conversion to ICD, 11th revision (ICD-11). METHODS: Studying 673,600 claims for 179 radiologists for the first year after ICD-10's implementation, we identified primary ICD-10 codes for the top 90th percentile of all examinations for the entire enterprise and each subspecialty division. Using established methodology, we calculated CCIFs (actual ICD-10 codes ÷ prior ICD-9 codes). To assess ICD-10's impact on cash flow, average monthly days in accounts receivable status was compared for the 12 months before and after conversion. RESULTS: Of all 69,823 ICD-10 codes, only 7,075 were used to report primary diagnoses across the entire practice, and just 562 were used to report 90% of all claims, compared with 348 under ICD-9. This translates to an overall CCIF of 1.6 for the department (far less than the literature-predicted 6). By subspecialty division, CCIFs ranged from 0.7 (breast) to 3.5 (musculoskeletal). Monthly average days in accounts receivable for the 12 months before and after ICD-10 conversion did not increase. CONCLUSION: The operational impact of the ICD-10 transition on radiology practices appears far less than anticipated with respect to both CCIF and delays in cash flow. Predictive models should be refined to help practices better prepare for ICD-11.

Analysis and Economic Implication of X-Ray Film Reject in Diagnostic Radiology Department of Jimma University Specialized Hospital, Southwest Ethiopia.

BACKGROUND: Patients usually undergo repeated X-ray examinations after their initial X-ray radiographs are rejected due to poor image quality. This subjects the patients to excess radiation exposure and extra cost.It is therefore investigating the magnitude and causes of reject is mandatory. This study aimed to assess the reject rate of X-ray films and its economic implication in order to obtain information for further recommendations on image quality, cost and radiation exposure. METHOD: A cross-sectional study approaches was employed. Reject rate was measured for two x-rays in the department across all plain x-ray films examinations using a structured format on which relevant data for reject were recorded by investigators. The results were then collected and entered into a database for analysis. RESULT: Reject rate and cause of reject were measured across all plane x-ray examinations for the hospital. From a total of 6563 exposed films, 16.85% were rejected. This leads to economic waste of 24,721.99 ETB, or 17.8% of a total cost in 4month period and increase in radiation dose to both patients and staff. CONCLUSION: The findings from this study show that both the overall reject rate and individual reject rate were higher than the accepted range which could be due to machine fault, operator's technical limitations, or absence of quality control program in the department. We recommend that regular quality assurance and quality control procedure which are well documented should be established in the department.

A model to determine payments associated with radiology procedures.

OBJECTIVE: Across the United States, there is a growing number of patients in Accountable Care Organizations and under risk contracts with commercial insurance. This is due to proliferation of new value-based payment models and care delivery reform efforts. In this context, the business model of radiology within a hospital or health system context is shifting from a primary profit-center to a cost-center with a goal of cost savings. Radiology departments need to increasingly understand how the transactional nature of the business relates to financial rewards. The main challenge with current reporting systems is that the information is presented only at an aggregated level, and often not broken down further, for instance, by type of exam. As such, the primary objective of this research is to provide better visibility into payments associated with individual radiology procedures in order to better calibrate expense/capital structure of the imaging enterprise to the actual revenue or value-add to the organization it belongs to. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We propose a methodology that can be used to determine technical payments at a procedure level. We use a proportion based model to allocate payments to individual radiology procedures based on total charges (which also includes non-radiology related charges). RESULTS: Using a production dataset containing 424,250 radiology exams we calculated the overall average technical charge for Radiology to be $873.08 per procedure and the corresponding average payment to be $326.43 (range: $48.27 for XR and $2750.11 for PET/CT) resulting in an average payment percentage of 37.39% across all exams. DISCUSSION: We describe how charges associated with a procedure can be used to approximate technical payments at a more granular level with a focus on Radiology. The methodology is generalizable to approximate payment for other services as well. Understanding payments associated with each procedure can be useful during strategic practice planning. CONCLUSIONS: Charge-to-total charge ratio can be used to approximate radiology payments at a procedure level.