Reducing the carbon footprint of radiology through automatic workstation shutdown protocols.

AIM: Climate change poses a major threat to human health, with significant contributions from healthcare systems, with the UK National Health Service (NHS) accounting for 4% of national CO2 emissions. Radiology departments, with high energy consumption from heating, ventilation, cooling (HVAC), and scanners, also contribute significantly. Workstations, though less power-intensive than scanners, are numerous and offer an avenue for emission reduction potential. This study investigates the impact of an automatic power-off/on protocol for radiology workstations at an acute hospital trust on energy consumption, carbon emissions, and financial savings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from 88 reporting workstations were collected on power usage, CO2 emissions, and the associated energy cost before and after implementing an automatic shutdown protocol, which ensured workstations were turned off out of hours and over weekends. RESULTS: Average weekly workstation on-time fell from 148 to 75.5 hours, resulting in an annual energy saving of 17 MWh, equivalent to a reduction of 3.4 tonnes CO2 equivalent and a financial saving of £5000. No complaints or issues with workflow disruption were reported. CONCLUSION: This intervention demonstrates a significant reduction in emissions and energy costs without workflow disruption, offering an easy and replicable sustainability measure for radiology departments. While savings are modest compared to HVAC and scanner emissions, the protocol's simplicity and effectiveness in addressing human factors in power management highlight its potential. Broader application across hospital networks could yield substantial environmental and financial benefits. These findings contribute to the ongoing efforts to improve sustainability within radiology and health care.

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.

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).

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.

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.

Costing in Radiology and Health Care: Rationale, Relativity, Rudiments, and Realities.

Costs direct decisions that influence the effectiveness of radiology in the care of patients on a daily basis. Yet many radiologists struggle to harness the power of cost measurement and cost management as a critical path toward establishing their value in patient care. When radiologists cannot articulate their value, they risk losing control over how imaging is delivered and supported. In the United States, recent payment trends directing value-based payments for bundles of care advance the imperative for radiology providers to articulate their value. This begins with the development of an understanding of the providers' own costs, as well as the complex interrelationships and imaging-associated costs of other participants across the imaging value chain. Controlling the costs of imaging necessitates understanding them at a procedural level and quantifying the costs of delivering specific imaging services. Effective product-level costing is dependent on a bottom-up approach, which is supported through recent innovations in time-dependent activity-based costing. Once the costs are understood, they can be managed. Within the high fixed cost and high overhead cost environment of health care provider organizations, stakeholders must understand the implications of misaligned top-down cost management approaches that can both paradoxically shift effort from low-cost workers to much costlier professionals and allocate overhead costs counterproductively. Radiology's engagement across a broad spectrum of care provides an excellent opportunity for radiology providers to take a leading role within the health care organizations to enhance value and margin through principled and effective cost management. Following a discussion of the rationale for measuring costs, this review contextualizes costs from the perspectives of a variety of stakeholders (relativity), discusses core concepts in how costs are classified (rudiments), presents common and improved methods for measuring costs in health care, and discusses how cost management strategies can either improve or hinder high-value health care (realities). © RSNA, 2017 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Optimizing MRI Logistics: Focused Process Improvements Can Increase Throughput in an Academic Radiology Department.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to describe and evaluate the effect of focused process improvements on protocol selection and scheduling in the MRI division of a busy academic medical center, as measured by examination and room times, magnet fill rate, and potential revenue increases and cost savings to the department. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Focused process improvements, led by a multidisciplinary team at a large academic medical center, were directed at streamlining MRI protocols and optimizing matching protocol ordering to scheduling while maintaining or improving image quality. Data were collected before (June 2013) and after (March 2015) implementation of focused process improvements and divided by subspecialty on type of examination, allotted examination time, actual examination time, and MRI parameters. Direct and indirect costs were compiled and analyzed in consultation with the business department. Data were compared with evaluated effects on selected outcome and efficiency measures, as well as revenue and cost considerations. Statistical analysis was performed using a t test. RESULTS: During the month of June 2013, 2145 MRI examinations were performed at our center; 2702 were performed in March 2015. Neuroradiology examinations were the most common (59% in June 2013, 56% in March 2015), followed by body examinations (25% and 27%). All protocols and parameters were analyzed and streamlined for each examination, with slice thickness, TR, and echo train length among the most adjusted parameters. Mean time per examination decreased from 43.4 minutes to 36.7 minutes, and mean room time per patient decreased from 46.3 to 43.6 minutes (p = 0.009). Potential revenue from increased throughput may yield up to $3 million yearly (at $800 net revenue per scan) or produce cost savings if the facility can reduce staffed scanner hours or the number of scanners in its fleet. Actual revenue and expense impacts depend on the facility's fixed and variable cost structure, payer contracts, MRI fleet composition, and unmet MRI demand. CONCLUSION: Focused process improvements in selecting MRI protocols and scheduling examinations significantly increased throughput in the MRI division, thereby increasing capacity and revenue. Shorter scan and department times may also improve patient experience.

Placement of central venous port catheters and peripherally inserted central catheters in the routine clinical setting of a radiology department: analysis of costs and intervention duration learning curve.

Background Placement of central venous port catheters (CVPS) and peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC) is an integral component of state-of-the-art patient care. In the era of increasing cost awareness, it is desirable to have more information to comprehensively assess both procedures. Purpose To perform a retrospective analysis of interventional radiologic implantation of CVPS and PICC lines in a large patient population including a cost analysis of both methods as well as an investigation the learning curve in terms of the interventions' durations. Material and Methods All CVPS and PICC line related interventions performed in an interventional radiology department during a three-year period from January 2011 to December 2013 were examined. Documented patient data included sex, venous access site, and indication for CVPS or PICC placement. A cost analysis including intervention times was performed based on the prorated costs of equipment use, staff costs, and expenditures for disposables. The decrease in intervention duration in the course of time conformed to the learning curve. Results In total, 2987 interventions were performed by 16 radiologists: 1777 CVPS and 791 PICC lines. An average implantation took 22.5 ± 0.6 min (CVPS) and 10.1 ± 0.9 min (PICC lines). For CVPS, this average time was achieved by seven radiologists newly learning the procedures after performing 20 CVPS implantations. Total costs per implantation were €242 (CVPS) and €201 (PICC lines). Conclusion Interventional radiologic implantations of CVPS and PICC lines are well-established procedures, easy to learn by residents, and can be implanted at low costs.

An honest day's work: pay for performance in a pediatric radiology department.

Compensation models in radiology take a variety of forms, but regardless of practice type, successful models must reward productivity, be simple, and epitomize fairness. The ideal model should also be flexible enough to transition, based upon the changing strategic goals of a department. The plan should be constructed around rewarding the behaviors that the organization values. In this minisymposium article the author presents the value of different types of compensation plans and discusses advantages and disadvantages. Finally, the author presents a pay-for-performance model that has had long-term success at a private-turned-academic practice in pediatric radiology.

Pediatric radiology malpractice claims - characteristics and comparison to adult radiology claims.

Medical malpractice is the primary method by which people who believe they have suffered an injury in the course of medical care seek compensation in the United States and Canada. An increasing body of research demonstrates that failure to correctly diagnose is the most common allegation made in malpractice claims against radiologists. Since the 1994 survey by the Society of Chairmen of Radiology in Children's Hospitals (SCORCH), no other published studies have specifically examined the frequency or clinical context of malpractice claims against pediatric radiologists or arising from pediatric imaging interpretation. We hypothesize that the frequency, character and outcome of malpractice claims made against pediatric radiologists differ from those seen in general radiology practice. We searched the Controlled Risk Insurance Co. (CRICO) Strategies' Comparative Benchmarking System (CBS), a private repository of approximately 350,000 open and closed medical malpractice claims in the United States, for claims related to pediatric radiology. We further queried these cases for the major allegation, the clinical environment in which the claim arose, the clinical severity of the alleged injury, indemnity paid (if payment was made), primary imaging modality involved (if applicable) and primary International Classification of Diseases, 9th revision (ICD-9) diagnosis underlying the claim. There were a total of 27,056 fully coded claims of medical malpractice in the CBS database in the 5-year period between Jan. 1, 2010, and Dec. 31, 2014. Of these, 1,472 cases (5.4%) involved patients younger than 18 years. Radiology was the primary service responsible for 71/1,472 (4.8%) pediatric cases. There were statistically significant differences in average payout for pediatric radiology claims ($314,671) compared to adult radiology claims ($174,033). The allegations were primarily diagnosis-related in 70% of pediatric radiology claims. The most common imaging modality implicated in pediatric radiology claims was radiography. The highest payouts in pediatric radiology pertained to missed congenital and developmental anomalies (average $1,222,932) such as developmental dysplasia of the hip and congenital central nervous system anomalies. More than half of pediatric radiology claims arose in the ambulatory setting. Pediatric radiology is not immune from claims of medical malpractice and these claims result in high monetary payouts, particularly for missed diagnoses of congenital and developmental anomalies. Our data suggest that efforts to reduce diagnostic error in the outpatient radiology setting, in the interpretation of radiographs, and in the improved diagnosis of fractures and congenital and developmental anomalies would be of particular benefit to the pediatric radiology community.

Inpatient Complexity in Radiology-a Practical Application of the Case Mix Index Metric.

With ongoing healthcare payment reforms in the USA, radiology is moving from its current state of a revenue generating department to a new reality of a cost-center. Under bundled payment methods, radiology does not get reimbursed for each and every inpatient procedure, but rather, the hospital gets reimbursed for the entire hospital stay under an applicable diagnosis-related group code. The hospital case mix index (CMI) metric, as defined by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, has a significant impact on how much hospitals get reimbursed for an inpatient stay. Oftentimes, patients with the highest disease acuity are treated in tertiary care radiology departments. Therefore, the average hospital CMI based on the entire inpatient population may not be adequate to determine department-level resource utilization, such as the number of technologists and nurses, as case length and staffing intensity gets quite high for sicker patients. In this study, we determine CMI for the overall radiology department in a tertiary care setting based on inpatients undergoing radiology procedures. Between April and September 2015, CMI for radiology was 1.93. With an average of 2.81, interventional neuroradiology had the highest CMI out of the ten radiology sections. CMI was consistently higher across seven of the radiology sections than the average hospital CMI of 1.81. Our results suggest that inpatients undergoing radiology procedures were on average more complex in this hospital setting during the time period considered. This finding is relevant for accurate calculation of labor analytics and other predictive resource utilization tools.

Accounting Basics Part 4: Net Present Value.

MaKing and justitying capital expenditures can be a difficult part of a supervi- sory or managerial position. Understanding more advanced accounting tools for justifying these expenditures, like Internal Rate of Return (IRR) and Net Present Value (NPV), can improve the chances of receiving necessary funding. NPV avoids the weaknesses of the IRR method by allowing decision makers to specify when cash flows will occur instead of assuming that net cash flows will be equal each year ofa project. Taking the time to learn basic account- ing definitions and tools can improve your ability to manage and provide greater opportunities to help patients, staff, and the community.

Accounting Basics Part 3: Time Value and Internal Rate of Return.

Understanding the principles behind the time value of money can help individuals succeed in both business and personal long-term planning. The Internal Rate of Return (IRR) method provides a straightforward way to analyze long-term financial decisions. The result, the project's IRR, is a simple percentage that is easy to explain and compare with the results from other projects. When considering multiple investments, it is relatively simple to rank them by their IRRs, make minor adjustments to the list for qualitative issues, and invest down the list until the funds for the year have been spent.

Accounting Basics, Part 2: Justify Capital Spending.

Making and justifying capital expenditures can be a difficult part of a supervisory or managerial position. Understanding some basic tools for making estimates and calculating values can help simplify this process. Breaking down some of the most common accounting methods into a six-step, intuitive process allows everyone, even those with little or no accounting background, to use and understand the results of these tools. Accounting tools can seem complex when they are first used, but after walking through them step-by-step and practicing them, they can become an essential tool in working with executives and other administrators.

A Team Approach for CT Protocol Optimization.

* This article demonstrates that using several protocol change scenarios to illustrate how combining the expertise of a radiologist, CT technologist, a medical physicist, schedulers, and IT personnel would result in a better outcome for protocol optimization, management, and review. * While a team can develop a protocol change, it is not a given that they would then be capable of disseminating that change in a well-documented manner to all scanners within the CT fleet of their enterprise. Several scenarios are used to demonstrate these complexities and interrelationships. * Costs associated with protocol management are discussed. While teamwork and FTEs are quantifiable, the cost of failing to carry out these tasks is harder to quantify.

Reconciling quality and cost: A case study in interventional radiology.

OBJECTIVES: To provide a method to calculate delay cost and examine the relationship between quality and total cost. METHODS: The total cost including capacity, supply and delay cost for running an interventional radiology suite was calculated. The capacity cost, consisting of labour, lease and overhead costs, was derived based on expenses per unit time. The supply cost was calculated according to actual procedural material use. The delay cost and marginal delay cost derived from queueing models was calculated based on waiting times of inpatients for their procedures. RESULTS: Quality improvement increased patient safety and maintained the outcome. The average daily delay costs were reduced from 1275 € to 294 €, and marginal delay costs from approximately 2000 € to 500 €, respectively. The one-time annual cost saved from the transfer of surgical to radiological procedures was approximately 130,500 €. The yearly delay cost saved was approximately 150,000 €. With increased revenue of 10,000 € in project phase 2, the yearly total cost saved was approximately 290,000 €. Optimal daily capacity of 4.2 procedures was determined. CONCLUSIONS: An approach for calculating delay cost toward optimal capacity allocation was presented. An overall quality improvement was achieved at reduced costs. KEY POINTS: • Improving quality in terms of safety, outcome, efficiency and timeliness reduces cost. • Mismatch of demand and capacity is detrimental to quality and cost. • Full system utilization with random demand results in long waiting periods and increased cost.

Justify a Dedicated Radiology Coder-Reimbursement Specialist.

There are many opportunities to justify a dedicated staff member. We have to be able to answer the question "How does this position make money?" The bottom line is that it's crucial the facility does not forfeit appropriate reimbursement for its existing procedures. For new procedures, or equipment, this individual can also ensure cost-benefit analysis/ROI is correct for equipment and/or supply purchases. The specific opportunities vary by facility so you must determine where your potential opportunities lie. There is not one answer, but this article provides you with specific areas to evaluate. Keep in mind if you are evaluating opportunities related to specific procedures you need to utilize outpatient numbers and assume Medicare reimbursement rates so that you calculate a conservative estimate. There is nioney to be found in most hospital organizations, so take the time to identify the potential benefit for your own. You can quantify the impact of a dedicated individual based on your specific case mix, which is very useful when justifying a new position. Also, it's very important to remember, you get what you pay for-fill the new position wisely. Saving a small amount in salary may result in a large sacrifice in potential revenues.

Challenging the Service Cost Paradigm.

Most healthcare organizations are looking to find more efficient and cost-effective ways of delivering service as they are challenged to assume more risk in order to provide timely and cost effective care. Alternative service with an independent service organization or third party may be an easy and rewarding solution. Serious consideration should be given purchase/service cycle and into a lower cost service paradigm designed to provide excellent service tailored to a facility's specific needs. In this article, an evaluation of all service model options is provided, as well as examples including a CT acquisition, pro formas, and program development.

Preparing for the costs of XR-29 a new standard for CT radiation dose monitoring.

A new standard for computed tomography (CT) scanners, established by the Medical Imaging and Technology Alliance, is aimed at ensuring CT studies are performed on safe equipment that delivers high-quality images at the lowest possible radiation dose to patients. Starting in January, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services will implement a new payment incentive, authorized by Congress in 2014, aimed at promoting healthcare providers' adoption of the new standard for all outpatient CT studies. Organizations that perform CT studies on an outpatient basis will need to develop a process to comply with the standards or face a reduction in payment per study.