Spectrum of Cognitive Biases in Diagnostic Radiology.

Cognitive biases are systematic thought processes involving the use of a filter of personal experiences and preferences arising from the tendency of the human brain to simplify information processing, especially when taking in vast amounts of data such as from imaging studies. These biases encompass a wide spectrum of thought processes and frequently overlap in their concepts, with multiple biases usually in operation when interpretive and perceptual errors occur in radiology. The authors review the gamut of cognitive biases that occur in radiology. These biases are organized according to their expected stage of occurrence while the radiologist reads and interprets an imaging study. In addition, the authors propose several additional cognitive biases that have not yet, to their knowledge, been defined in the radiologic literature but are applicable to diagnostic radiology. Case examples are used to illustrate potential biases and their impact, with emergency radiology serving as the clinical paradigm, given the associated high imaging volumes, wide diversity of imaging examinations, and rapid pace, which can further increase a radiologist's reliance on biases and heuristics. Potential strategies to recognize and overcome one's personal biases at each stage of image interpretation are also discussed. Awareness of such biases and their unintended effects on imaging interpretations and patient outcomes may help make radiologists cognizant of their own biases that can result in diagnostic errors. Identification of cognitive bias in departmental and systematic quality improvement practices may represent another tool to prevent diagnostic errors in radiology. ©RSNA, 2024 See the invited commentary by Larson in this issue.

Emotional Harm in the Radiology Department: Analysis of an Underrecognized Preventable Error.

Background Emotional harm incidents in health care may result in lost trust and adverse outcomes. However, investigations of emotional harm in radiology departments remain lacking. Purpose To better understand contributors and clinical scenarios in which emotional harm can occur in radiology, to document incidences, and to develop preventative countermeasures. Materials and Methods A large tertiary hospital adverse event reporting system was retrospectively searched for submissions under the category of dignity and respect in radiology between December 2014 and December 2020. Submissions were assigned to one of 14 categories per a previously developed classification system. Root-cause analysis of events was performed with a focus on countermeasures for future prevention. The person experiencing emotional harm (patient or staff) was noted. Results Of all radiology-related submissions, 37 of 3032 (1.2%) identified 43 dignity and respect incidents: failure to be patient centered (n = 23; 54%), disrespectful communication (n = 16; 37%), privacy violation (n = 2; 5%), minimization of patient concerns (n = 1; 2%), and loss of property (n = 1; 2%). Failure to be patient centered (n = 23) was subcategorized into disregard for patient preference (12 of 23; 52%), delay in care (eight of 23; 35%), and ineffective communication (three of 23; 13%). Of the 43 incidents, 32 involved patients (74%) and 11 involved staff (26%). Emotional harm in staff was because of disrespectful communication from other staff (eight of 11; 73%). Seventy-three countermeasures were identified: staff communication training (n = 32; 44%), individual feedback (n = 18; 25%), system innovation (n = 16; 22%), improvement of existing communication processes (n = 3; 4%), process reminders (n = 3; 4%), and unclear (n = 1; 1%). Individual feedback and staff communication training that focused on active listening, asking for the patient's preferences, and closed-loop communication addressed 34 of the 43 incidents (79%). Conclusion Most emotional harm incidents were from disrespectful communication and failure to be patient centered. Providing training focused on active listening, asking for patient's preferences, and closed-loop communication would potentially prevent most of these incidents. © RSNA, 2021 See also the editorial by Bruno in this issue.

Outcomes of Postprocedural Closeout Checklist Implementation to Prevent Adverse Events during Interventional Radiology Procedures: An Initiative to Improve Outcomes.

PURPOSE: To assess whether adherence to a postprocedural closeout (PPC) checklist decreases adverse events during image-guided procedures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Based on the analysis of prior adverse events related to image-guided procedures, the Radiology Quality Committee developed a PPC checklist. The rates of serious reportable events related to image-guided procedures performed in the radiology department were recorded annually from 2015 to 2021. The rate of adverse events was normalized to the procedure volume in the corresponding periods. The number of patients requiring repeat procedures was recorded. The severity of impact was classified according to the Society of Interventional Radiology Adverse Event Classification System. The annual rates before (2015 and 2016) and after (2017-2021) the implementation of PPC were compared. RESULTS: Seventy-seven safety reports were identified in image-guided procedures over the study period, of which 43 cases were not related to the PPC, leaving 34 cases for the analysis. Radiology adverse events decreased from 0.069% (14/20,218, 7/y) before PPC implementation to 0.034% (20/58,793, 4/y) after implementation (P = .05, 43% decrease). Radiology repeat procedures decreased from 0.040% (8/20,218, 4/y) before PPC implementation to 0.007% (4/58,793, 0.8/y) after implementation (P = .0033, 80% decrease). Moreover, severity of adverse events decreased (P = .009). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a PPC checklist improved patient outcomes by decreasing the number of adverse events that occur from inadequate safety processes at the end of image-guided procedures by 43%, need for repeat procedures by 80%, and severity of impact of errors.

Procedure-specific Training for Robot-assisted Distal Pancreatectomy.

OBJECTIVE: To train practicing surgeons in robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RADP) and assess the impact on 5 domains of healthcare quality. BACKGROUND: RADP may reduce the treatment burden compared with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP), but studies on institutional training and implementation programs are scarce. METHODS: A retrospective, single-center, cohort study evaluating surgical performance during a procedure-specific training program for RADP (January 2006 to September 2017). Baseline and unadjusted outcomes were compared "before training" (ODP only; June 2012). Exclusion criteria were neoadjuvant therapy, vascular- and unrelated organ resection. Run charts evaluated index length of stay (LOS) and 90-day comprehensive complication index. Cumulative sum charts of operating time (OT) assessed institutional learning. Adjusted outcomes after RADP versus ODP were compared using a secondary propensity-score-matched (1:1) analysis to determine clinical efficacy. RESULTS: After screening, 237 patients were included in the before-training (133 ODP) and after-training (24 ODP, 80 RADP) groups. After initiation of training, mean perioperative blood loss decreased (-255 mL, P<0.001), OT increased (+65 min, P < 0.001), and median LOS decreased (-1 day, P < 0.001). All other outcomes remained similar (P>0.05). Over time, there were nonrandom (P < 0.05) downward shifts in LOS, while comprehensive complication index was unaffected. We observed 3 learning curve phases in OT: accumulation (<31 cases), optimization (case 31-65), and a steady-state (>65 cases). Propensity-score-matching confirmed reductions in index and 90-day LOS and blood loss with similar morbidity between RADP and ODP. CONCLUSION: Supervised procedure-specific training enabled successful implementation of RADP by practicing surgeons with immediate improvements in length of stay, without adverse effects on safety.

Practical Suggestions on How to Move From Peer Review to Peer Learning.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to outline practical steps that a department can take to transition to a peer learning model. CONCLUSION: The 2015 Institute of Medicine report on improving diagnosis emphasized that organizations and industries that embrace error as an opportunity to learn tend to outperform those that do not. To meet this charge, radiology must transition from a peer review to a peer learning approach.

Ongoing Professional Practice Evaluation of Radiologists: Strategies and Tools for Simplifying a Complex Process.

The Joint Commission, our major accreditation organization, requires that all physicians who have been granted privileges at an organization must undergo evaluation of and collect data relating to their performance, to make the decisions of privileging more objective and continuous by that organization. For radiologists, this so-called ongoing professional practice evaluation (OPPE) can be assessed by using the six general core competencies. These competencies were initially developed for graduate medical education and defined by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education and have now been expanded to provide a general framework for defining categories of data to be collected in assessing the performance of practicing radiologists. Within each core competency, various radiology-relevant metrics exist that can be measured to fulfill the OPPE requirements. Each radiology department can determine the specific type of data to be collected, including determining what items are defined as acceptable performance metrics, what data or outcomes require further monitoring, and what specific data or data trends would trigger the need for an additional focused and more thorough professional practice evaluation, also known as a focused professional practice evaluation (FPPE). ©RSNA, 2018.

The Road to Wellness: Engagement Strategies to Help Radiologists Achieve Joy at Work.

Physician wellness is recognized as a critical component of enhancing the quality of health care. An epidemic of symptoms related to stress and burnout among medical professionals, including radiologists, in the workplace is threatening not only health care providers at a personal level but also the entire health care system. In this review, the authors highlight recognized stressors in the contemporary radiology workplace and offer practical suggestions for mitigating burnout, improving professional engagement, and promoting wellness. Thematic goals to focus on include fostering an integrated and harmonious community at work, diminishing workplace detractors, creating opportunities to cultivate positive attitudes and intellect, and implementing effective leadership practices. ©RSNA, 2018.

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.

Peer Feedback, Learning, and Improvement: Answering the Call of the Institute of Medicine Report on Diagnostic Error.

In September 2015, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) published a report titled "Improving Diagnosis in Health Care," in which it was recommended that "health care organizations should adopt policies and practices that promote a nonpunitive culture that values open discussion and feedback on diagnostic performance." It may seem counterintuitive that a report addressing a highly technical skill such as medical diagnosis would be focused on organizational culture. The wisdom becomes clearer, however, when examined in the light of recent advances in the understanding of human error and individual and organizational performance. The current dominant model for radiologist performance improvement is scoring-based peer review, which reflects a traditional quality assurance approach, derived from manufacturing in the mid-1900s. Far from achieving the goals of the IOM, which are celebrating success, recognizing mistakes as an opportunity to learn, and fostering openness and trust, we have found that scoring-based peer review tends to drive radiologists inward, against each other, and against practice leaders. Modern approaches to quality improvement focus on using and enhancing interpersonal professional relationships to achieve and maintain high levels of individual and organizational performance. In this article, the authors review the recommendations set forth by the recent IOM report, discuss the science and theory that underlie several of those recommendations, and assess how well they fit with the current dominant approach to radiology peer review. The authors also offer an alternative approach to peer review: peer feedback, learning, and improvement (or more succinctly, "peer learning"), which they believe is better aligned with the principles promoted by the IOM. © RSNA, 2016.

The complementary nature of peer review and quality assurance data collection.

PURPOSE: To assess the complementary natures of (a) a peer review ( PR peer review )-mandated database for physician review and discrepancy reporting and (b) a voluntary quality assurance ( QA quality assurance ) system for anecdotal reporting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was institutional review board approved and HIPAA compliant; informed consent was waived. Submissions to voluntary QA quality assurance and mandatory PR peer review databases were searched for obstetrics and gynecology-related keywords. Cases were graded independently by two radiologists, with final grades resolved via consensus. Errors were categorized as perceptional, interpretive, communication related, or procedural. Effect of errors was assessed in terms of clinical and radiologic follow-up. RESULTS: There were 185 and 64 cases with issues attributed to 32 and 27 radiologists in QA quality assurance and PR peer review databases, respectively; 23 and nine radiologists, respectively, had cases attributed to only them. Procedure-related entries were submitted almost exclusively through the QA quality assurance database (62 of 64 [97%]). In QA quality assurance and PR peer review databases, respectively, perceptional (47 of 185 [25%] and 27 of 64 [42%]) and interpretative (64 of 185 [34%] and 30 of 64 [47%]) issues constituted most errors. Most entries in both databases (104 of 185 [56%] in QA quality assurance and 49 of 64 [76%] in PR peer review ) were considered minor events: wording in the report, findings already known from patient history or prior imaging or concurrent follow-up imaging, or delay in diagnosing a benign finding. Databases had similar percentages of moderate events (28 of 185 [15%] in QA quality assurance and nine of 64 [14%] in PR peer review ), such as recommending unnecessary follow-up imaging or radiation exposure in pregnancy without knowing the patient was pregnant (nine of 64 [14%] in PR peer review and 28 of 185 [15%] in QA quality assurance ). The PR peer review database had fewer major events (one of 64 [1.6%]) than the QA quality assurance database (32 of 185 [17%]). CONCLUSION: The two quality improvement systems are complementary, with the QA quality assurance database yielding less frequent but more clinically important errors, while the PR peer review database serves to establish benchmarks for error rate in radiologists' performance.

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.

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.

Key Concepts of Patient Safety in Radiology.

Harm from medical error is a difficult challenge in health care, including radiology. Modern approaches to patient safety have shifted from a focus on individual performance and reaction to errors to development of robust systems and processes that create safety in organizations. Organizations that operate safely in high-risk environments have been termed high-reliability organizations. Such organizations tend to see themselves as being constantly bombarded by errors. Thus, the goal is not to eliminate human error but to develop strategies to prevent, identify, and mitigate errors and their effects before they result in harm. High-level reliability strategies focus on systems and organizational culture; intermediate-level reliability strategies focus on establishment of effective processes; low-level reliability strategies focus on individual performance. Although several classification schemes for human error exist, modern safety researchers caution against overreliance on error investigations to improve safety. Blaming individuals involved in adverse events when they had no intent to cause harm has been shown to undermine organizational safety. Safety researchers have coined the term just culture for the successful balance of individual accountability with accommodation for human fallibility and system deficiencies. Safety is inextricably intertwined with an organization's quality efforts. A quality management system that focuses on standardization, making errors visible, building in quality, and constantly stopping to fix problems results in a safer environment and engages personnel in a way that contributes to a culture of safety.

Conducting a Successful Practice Quality Improvement Project for American Board of Radiology Certification.

Practice quality improvement (PQI) is a required component of the American Board of Radiology (ABR) Maintenance of Certification (MOC) cycle, with the goal to "improve the quality of health care through diplomate-initiated learning and quality improvement." The essential requirements of PQI projects include relevance to one's practice, achievability in one's clinical setting, results suited for repeat measurements during an ABR MOC cycle, and reasonable expectation to result in quality improvement (QI). PQI projects can be performed by a group or an individual or as part of a participating institution. Given the interdisciplinary nature of radiology, teamwork is critical to ensure patient safety and the success of PQI projects. Additionally, successful QI requires considerable investment of time and resources, coordination, organizational support, and individual engagement. Group PQI projects offer many advantages, especially in larger practices and for processes that cross organizational boundaries, whereas individual projects may be preferred in small practices or for focused projects. In addition to the three-phase "plan, do, study, act" model advocated by the ABR, there are several other improvement models, which are based on continuous data collection and rapid simultaneous testing of multiple interventions. When properly planned, supported, and executed, group PQI projects can improve the value and viability of a radiology practice.

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.

Guide to effective quality improvement reporting in radiology.

Substantial societal investments in biomedical research are contributing to an explosion in knowledge that the health delivery system is struggling to effectively implement. Managing this complexity requires ingenuity, research and development, and dedicated resources. Many innovative solutions can be found in quality improvement (QI) activities, defined as the "systematic, data-guided activities designed to bring about immediate, positive changes in the delivery of healthcare in particular settings." QI shares many similarities with biomedical research, but also differs in several important ways. Inclusion of QI in the peer-reviewed literature is needed to foster its advancement through the dissemination, testing, and refinement of theories, methods, and applications. QI methods and reporting standards are less mature in health care than those of biomedical research. A lack of widespread understanding and consensus regarding the purpose of publishing QI-related material also exists. In this document, guidance is provided in evaluating quality of QI-related material and in determining priority of submitted material for publication.

Radiologist and Radiology Practice Wellbeing: A Report of the 2023 ARRS Wellness Summit.

In April 2023, the first American Roentgen Ray Society (ARRS) Wellness Summit was held in Honolulu, Hawaii. The Summit was a communal call to action bringing together professionals from the field of radiology to critically review our current state of wellness and reimagine the role of radiology and radiologists to further wellbeing. The in-person and virtual Summit was available free-of-cost to all meeting registrants and included 12 sessions with 44 invited moderators and panelists. The Summit aimed to move beyond simply rehashing the repeated issues and offering theoretical solutions, and instead focus on intentional practice evolution, identifying implementable strategies so that we as a field can start to walk our wellness talk. Here, we first summarize the thematic discussions from the 2023 ARRS Wellness Summit, and second, share several strategic action items that emerged.

Peer learning in abdominal radiology: iterative process improvements over a 20-year experience.

PURPOSE: After a slow and challenging transition period, peer learning and improvement (PLI) is now being more widely adopted by practices as an option for continuous personal and practice performance improvement. In addition to gaps that exist in the understanding of what PLI is and how it should be practiced, wide variation exists in how the process is implemented, administered, how outcomes are measured, and what strategies are employed to engage radiologists. This report aims to describe lessons learned from our 20-year experience with the design, implementation, and continuous improvements of a PLI program in a large academic program. METHODS: Since initial implementation in 2004, an oversight team prospectively documented iterative process improvements and data submission trends in our PLI process. Process data included strategies for engaging radiologists in the PLI process (fostering case submission, PLI meeting participation), steps for achieving regulatory compliance, and template content for facilitating the value and impact of PLI meetings (case analysis, review of contributing factors, identification of improvement opportunities). RESULTS: Submission trends, submitted case content, and improvement opportunities varied by clinical section. Process improvements that fostered engagement included closing the loop with participants, expanding criteria for case submission beyond interpretive disagreements (e.g., great pickups, near misses), minimizing impacts to workflow, and using evidence-based templates for case and contributor categorization, bias analysis, and identification of improvement opportunities. CONCLUSION: Implementing an effective PLI program requires sustained communication, education, and continuous process improvement. While PLI can certainly lead to process and individual performance improvement, the program requires trained champions, designated time, effort, resources, education, and patience to be effectively implemented.