Peer Learning in Radiology: Effect of a Pay-for-Performance Initiative on Clinical Impact and Usage.

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this article is to assess the effects of a pay-for-performance (PFP) initiative on clinical impact and usage of a radiology peer learning tool. MATERIALS AND METHODS. This retrospective study was performed at a large academic hospital. On May 1, 2017, a peer learning tool was implemented to facilitate radiologist peer feedback including clinical follow-up, positive feedback, and consultation. Subsequently, PFP target numbers for peer learning tool alerts by subspecialty divisions (October 1, 2017) and individual radiologists (October 1, 2018) were set. The primary outcome was report addendum rate (percent of clinical follow-up alerts with addenda), which was a proxy for peer learning tool clinical impact. Secondary outcomes were peer learning tool usage rate (number of peer learning tool alerts per 1000 radiology reports) and proportion of clinical follow-up alerts (percent of clinical follow-ups among all peer learning tool alerts). Outcomes were assessed biweekly using ANOVA and statistical process control analyses. RESULTS. Among 1,265,839 radiology reports from May 1, 2017, to September 29, 2019, a total of 20,902 peer learning tool alerts were generated. The clinical follow-up alert addendum rate was not significantly different between the period before the PFP initiative (9.9%) and the periods including division-wide (8.3%) and individual (7.9%) PFP initiatives (p = .55; ANOVA). Peer learning tool usage increased from 2.2 alerts per 1000 reports before the PFP initiative to 12.6 per 1000 during the division-wide PFP period (5.7-fold increase; 12.6/2.2), to 25.2 in the individual PFP period (11.5-fold increase vs before PFP; twofold increase vs division-wide) (p < .001). The clinical follow-up alert proportion decreased from 37.5% before the PFP initiative, to 34.4% in the division-wide period, to 31.3% in the individual PFP period. CONCLUSION. A PFP initiative improved radiologist engagement in peer learning by marked increase in peer learning tool usage rate without a change in report addendum rate as a proxy for clinical impact.

Comparing thoracic and abdominal subspecialists' follow-up recommendations for abdominal findings identified on chest CT.

PURPOSE: To compare thoracic and abdominal radiologists' follow-up recommendations for abdominal findings identified on chest CT. METHODS: This Institutional Review Board-exempt, retrospective study was performed at a large academic medical center with subspecialty radiology divisions. We used a combination of natural language processing and manual reviews to identify chest CT reports with and without abdominal findings that were interpreted by thoracic radiologists in 2019. Three random samples of reports were reviewed by two subspecialty trained abdominal radiologists for their agreement with thoracic radiologists' reporting: abdominal findings with follow-up recommendation (Group 1), abdominal findings without follow-up recommendation (Group 2), and no abdominal findings reported (Group 3). Primary outcome was agreement between thoracic and abdominal radiologists for the need for follow-up of abdominal findings. Secondary outcomes were agreement between subspecialists for the presence of abdominal findings and referring clinician adherence to recommendations. Fischer's exact test was used to compare proportions. RESULTS: Abdominal radiologists agreed with need for follow-up in 48.5% (16/33) of Group 1 cases and agreed follow-up was not necessary for 100% (34/34) of Group 2 cases (p < 0.001). Abdominal radiologists identified abdominal findings in 31.4% (11/35) of Group 3 cases, none of which required follow-up. Referring clinician adherence to thoracic radiologist follow-up recommendations for abdominal findings was 13/33 (39.4%). CONCLUSION: Abdominal radiologists frequently disagreed with thoracic radiologist recommendations for follow-up of abdominal findings on chest CT. Chest radiologists may consider abdominal subspecialty consultation or clinical decision support to reduce unnecessary imaging.

Frequency and Clinical Utility of Alerts for Intra-Institutional Radiologist Discrepant Opinions.

OBJECTIVE: Determine the rate of documented notification, via an alert, for intra-institutional discrepant radiologist opinions and addended reports and resulting clinical management changes. METHODS: This institutional review board-exempt, retrospective study was performed at a large academic medical center. We defined an intra-institutional discrepant opinion as when a consultant radiologist provides a different interpretation from that formally rendered by a colleague at our institution. We implemented a discrepant opinion policy requiring closed-loop notification of the consulting radiologist's second opinion to the original radiologist, who must acknowledge this alert within 30 days. This study included all discrepant opinion alerts created December 1, 2019, to December 31, 2021, of which two radiologists and an internal medicine physician performed consensus review. Primary outcomes were degree of discrepancy and percent of discrepant opinions leading to change in clinical management. Secondary outcome was report addendum rate compared with an existing peer learning program using Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Of 114 discrepant opinion alerts among 1,888,147 reports generated during the study period (0.006%), 58 alerts were categorized as major (50.9%), 41 as moderate (36.0%), and 15 as minor discrepancies (13.1%). Clinical management change occurred in 64 of 114 cases (56.1%). Report addendum rate for discrepant opinion alerts was 4-fold higher than for peer learning alerts at our institution (66 of 315 = 21% versus 432 of 8,273 =5.2%; P < .0001). DISCUSSION: Although discrepant intra-institutional radiologist second opinions were rare, they frequently led to changes in clinical management. Capturing these discrepancies by encouraging alert use may help optimize patient care and document what was communicated to the referring or consulting care team by consulting radiologists.

AMSER Rad Path Case of the Month: Effect of Case-based Integration of Radiology and Pathology on Medical Student Education and Interdisciplinary Collaboration.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Radiology and pathology are often underrepresented in undergraduate medical education. The Alliance of Medical Student Educators in Radiology (AMSER) hosts the AMSER Rad Path Case of the Month, an online archive of radiological case reports with pathology correlations submitted by medical students. The purpose of this study is to assess the value of preparing and submitting a case on medical students' educational experience. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Students who had cases accepted for publication in AMSER Rad Path Case of the Month from July 2018 to December 2019 were contacted by email to request their participation in a voluntary, anonymous 22-question survey. Surveys were sent to 35 students from seven institutions. RESULTS: Twenty three of the 35 students (65.7%) responded. Only five (21.7%) of respondents reported having previously followed a patient case through radiology and pathology during medical school, defined as interaction with a clinician in each specialty to discuss the case. When asked about their experience with AMSER Rad Path Case of the Month, most agreed or strongly agreed it was a valuable case-based learning experience (100%). Respondents also reported high satisfaction with improved understanding of disease process, increased understanding and ability to collaborate, and increased likelihood of participating in future academic work. CONCLUSION: AMSER Rad Path Case of the Month is a valuable case-based educational experience that deepens students' understanding of disease processes while affording them an opportunity for interdisciplinary and scholarly collaboration.

Assessment of a Large-Scale Peer Learning Program's Value by Manual Review of Case Submissions.

OBJECTIVE: Prior studies used submission numbers or report addendum rates to measure peer learning programs' (PLP) impact. We assessed the educational value of a PLP by manually reviewing cases submitted to identify factors correlating with meaningful learning opportunities (MLOs). METHODS: This institutional review board-exempted, retrospective study was performed in a large academic radiology department generating >800,000 reports annually. A PLP facilitating radiologist-to-radiologist feedback was implemented May 1, 2017, with subsequent pay-for-performance initiatives encouraging increasing submissions, >18,000 by 2019. Two radiologists blinded to submitter and receiver identity categorized 336 randomly selected submissions as a MLO, not meaningful, or equivocal, resolving disagreements in consensus review. Primary outcome was proportion of MLOs. Secondary outcomes included percent engagement by subspecialty clinical division and comparing MLO and report addendum rates via Fisher's exact tests. We assessed association between peer learning category, pay-for-performance interventions, and subspecialty division with MLOs using logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 336 PLP submissions, 65.2% (219 of 336) were categorized as meaningful, 27.4% (92 of 336) not meaningful, and 7.4% (25 of 336) equivocal, with substantial reviewer agreement (86.0% [289 of 336], κ = 0.71, 95% confidence interval 0.64-0.78). MLO rate (65.2% [219 of 336]) was five times higher than addendum rate (12.9% [43 of 333]) for the cohort. MLO proportion (adjusted odds ratios 0.05-1.09) and percent engagement (0.5%-3.6%) varied between subspecialty divisions, some submitting significantly fewer MLOs (P < .01). MLO proportion did not vary between peer learning categories. CONCLUSION: Educational value of a large-scale PLP, estimated through manual review of case submissions, is likely a more accurate measure of program impact. Incentives to enhance PLP use did not diminish the program's educational value.

Use of a PACS Embedded System for Communicating Radiologist to Technologist Learning Opportunities and Patient Callbacks.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine effect of modality, care setting, and radiology subspecialty on frequency of diagnostic image quality issues identified by radiologists during image interpretation. METHODS: This Institutional Review Board-exempt retrospective study was performed 10/1/18-6/30/20 at an academic radiology practice performing 700,000+ examinations annually. A closed-loop communication tool integrated in PACS workflow enabled radiologists to alert technologists to image quality issues. Radiologists categorized communications as requiring patient callback, or as technologist learning opportunities if image quality was adequate to generate a diagnostic report. Fisher's exact test assessed impact of imaging modality, radiology subspecialty, and care setting on radiologist-identified image quality issues. RESULTS: 976,915 imaging examinations were performed during the study period. Radiologists generated 1,935 technologist learning opportunities (0.20%) and 208 callbacks (0.02%). Learning opportunity rates were highest for MRI (0.60%) when compared to CT (0.26%) and radiography (0.08%) (p<0.0001). The same was true for patient callbacks (MRI 0.13%, CT 0.02%, radiography 0.0006%; p<0.0001). Outpatient examinations generated more learning opportunities (1479/637,092; 0.23%) vs. inpatient (305/200,206; 0.15%) and Emergency Department (151/139,617; 0.11%) (p<0.0001). Abdominal subspecialists were most likely to generate learning opportunities when compared to other subspecialists and cardiovascular imagers were most likely to call a patient back. CONCLUSIONS: Image quality issues identified by radiologists during the interpretation process were rare and 10 times more commonly categorized as learning opportunities not interfering with a clinically adequate report than as requiring patient callback. Further work is necessary to determine if creating learning opportunities leads to fewer patients requiring repeat examinations.

Improving the completeness of structured MRI reports for rectal cancer staging.

PURPOSE: Assess the impact of a multifaceted intervention to improve the completeness of structured MRI reports for patients undergoing initial staging for rectal cancer. METHODS: This Institutional Review Board-approved retrospective study was performed at a large academic hospital. MRI reports for initial staging of rectal cancer in 2017 and 2019 were analyzed pre- and post-implementation of multiple quality improvement interventions in 2018, including harmonizing MRI protocols across the institution, educational conferences and modules, and requiring second opinion consultation for all MRI rectal cancer examinations. The primary outcome measure was the completeness of rectal cancer staging MRI reports, classified as optimal, satisfactory, or unsatisfactory based on the inclusion of 15 quality measures pre-defined by a consensus of abdominal and cancer imaging subspecialists, colorectal surgeons, and radiation oncologists at our institution, based on published recommendations. Fisher's exact test was used to evaluate changes in report quality and documentation of each quality measure. RESULTS: The study included 138 MRI reports, of which 72 (52%) were completed in 2017 pre-intervention. Post intervention, the proportion of optimal reports increased significantly from 52.8% (38/72) to 71.2% (47/66) (p = 0.035). Documentation of 1 quality measure (N stage) increased post intervention from 91.7% (66/72) to 100% (66/66) (p = 0.029). Documentation of 7 quality measures was 100% post intervention, with a documentation rate of > 95% for all quality measures except radial location of tumor. CONCLUSION: A combination of educational and system-wide interventions was associated with an improvement in the completeness of structured MRI reports for rectal cancer staging.

Radiologist Reporting and Operational Management for Patients With Suspected COVID-19.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the adoption and outcomes of locally designed reporting guidelines for patients with possible coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: A departmental guideline was developed for radiologists that specified reporting terminology and required communication for patients with imaging findings suggestive of COVID-19, on the basis of patient test status and imaging indication. In this retrospective study, radiology reports completed from March 1, 2020, to May 3, 2020, that mentioned COVID-19 were reviewed. Reports were divided into patients with known COVID-19, patients with "suspected" COVID-19 (having an order indication of respiratory or infectious signs or symptoms), and "unsuspected patients" (other order indications, eg, trauma or non-chest pain). The primary outcome was the percentage of COVID-19 reports using recommended terminology; the secondary outcome was percentages of suspected and unsuspected patients diagnosed with COVID-19. Relationships between categorical variables were assessed using the Fisher exact test. RESULTS: Among 77,400 total reports, 1,083 suggested COVID-19 on the basis of imaging findings; 774 of COVID-19 reports (71%) used recommended terminology. Of 574 patients without known COVID-19 at the time of interpretation, 345 (60%) were eventually diagnosed with COVID-19, including 61% (315 of 516) of suspected and 52% (30 of 58) of unsuspected patients. Nearly all unsuspected patients (46 of 58) were identified on CT. CONCLUSIONS: Radiologists rapidly adopted recommended reporting terminology for patients with suspected COVID-19. The majority of patients for whom radiologists raised concern for COVID-19 were subsequently diagnosed with the disease, including the majority of clinically unsuspected patients. Using unambiguous terminology and timely notification about previously unsuspected patients will become increasingly critical to facilitate COVID-19 testing and contact tracing as states begin to lift restrictions.

Development of a highly sensitive method for detection of JAK2V617F.

BACKGROUND: Ph- myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) represent a heterogeneous group of chronic diseases characterized by increased expansion of hematopoietic cells of the myeloid lineage. JAK2V617F, an activation mutation form of tyrosine kinase JAK2, is found in the majority of patients with MPNs. Studies have demonstrated that JAK2V617F can cause MPNs, and various methods have been developed to detect JAK2V617F for diagnostic purposes. However, a highly sensitive method is still needed for the earliest possible detection and for disease prevention and treatment. METHODS: In the present study, we developed a method dubbed restriction fragment nested allele-specific PCR (RFN-AS-PCR). The method consists of three steps: 1) initial amplification of DNA samples with PCR primers surrounding the JAK2V617F mutation site, 2) digestion of the PCR products with restriction enzyme BsaXI which only cleaves the wild type allele, and 3) detection of JAK2V617F by allele-specific PCR with nested primers. RESULTS: We tested the sensitivity of the method by using purified plasmid DNAs and blood cell DNAs containing known proportions of JAK2V617F. We were able to detect JAK2V617F with a sensitivity of 0.001%. We further analyzed blood cell DNA samples from 105 healthy donors with normal blood cell counts and found three JAK2V617F-positive cases, which would have remained undetected using a less sensitive method. CONCLUSIONS: We have developed a highly sensitive method that will allow for detection of JAK2V617F at a very early stage. This method may have major implications in diagnosis and prevention of MPNs and related diseases.