Radiologist's clinical information review workstation interfaced with digital dictation system.

Efficient access to information systems integrated into the radiologist's interpretation workflow will result in a more informed radiologist, with an enhanced capability to render an accurate interpretation. We describe our implementation of radStation, a radiologist's clinical information review workstation that combines a digital dictation station with a clinical information display. radStation uses client software distributed to the radiologist's workstation and central server software, both running Windows NT (Microsoft, Redmond, WA). The client system has integrated digital dictation software. The bar-code microphone (Boomerang, Dictaphone Corp, Stratford, CT) also serves as a computer input device forwarding the procedure's accession number to the server software. This initiates multiple queries to available legacy databases, including the radiology information system (RIS), laboratory information system, clinic notes, hospital discharge, and operative report system. The three-tier architecture then returns the clinical results to the radStation client for display. At the conclusion of the dictation, the digital voice file is transferred to the dictation server and the client notifies the RIS to update the examination status. The system is efficient in its information retrieval, with queries displayed in about 1 second. The radStation client requires less than 5 minutes of radiologist training in its operation, given that its control interface integrates with the well-learned dictation process. The telephone-based dictation system, which this new system replaced, remains available as a back-up system in the event of an unexpected digital dictation system failure. This system is well accepted and valued by the radiologists. The system interface is quickly mastered. The system does not interrupt dictation workflow with the display of all information initiated with examination bar-coding. This system's features could become an accepted model as a standard tool for radiologists.

Integration of radiologist peer review into clinical review workstation.

Professional peer review of random prior radiologist's interpretations is mandated by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO). The JCAHO expects documentation of 5% rate of random peer-review cases. Countless hours are spent in departments fulfilling these requirements. The integration of the peer-review process into the radiologist's interpretation workflow was expected to increase the percentage of documented peer review, yet decrease the time and effort for this documentation. radStation clinical review workstations are deployed at every reading station. When a requisition is bar-coded, radStation retrieves the patient's clinical information and automatically displays the prior comparison report. If the radiologist agrees with the prior report, a single click on a "quality assurance' agree box documents the agreement. In the case of a discordance, an additional dialog box automatically appears and the radiologist enters the reason for disagreement and then submits the case as a discrepancy. The system holds the discordance for 3 to 5 working days, then notifies the original radiologist via E-mail that a prior interpretation has been submitted for peer review, lists the submitted discrepancy reason, and provides a link to display the discordant report. The peer-review database is separate from the existing radiology information system (RIS). At the end of every month, summary reports of all peer-review activity are generated automatically. Initial benchmarks of our deployed system anticipate documentation of long-term random peer-review rate at greater than 50% of interpreted cases. The system enhances the peer-review process by integrating it with the normal interpretation workflow. The time to complete peer review using radStation is less than 1 second per normal case and less than 60 seconds for a discordant case. The E-mail notification system is fully automated, eliminating the need for secretarial involvement in the data collection. This system has completely replaced a manual paper-based system. The integration of peer review directly into the radiologist's interpretation workstation greatly enhances the capability to easily exceed JCAHO standards. The overall increase in peer-review documentation should continue to improve the ability to document a consistent high quality of patient care.

Process mapping in screening mammography.

Successful screening mammography programs aim to screen large numbers of women efficiently and inexpensively. Development of an effective screening mammography program requires skilled personnel, solid infrastructure, and a robust computer system. A group of physicians, technologists, computer support personnel, and administrators carefully analyzed a growing screening mammography program as a series of steps, starting with the request for the examination and ending with the receipt of a hard-copy consultation. The analysis involved a detailed examination of every step and every possible outcome in the screening process. The information gained through process mapping may be used for identification of systemic and personnel problems, allocation of resources, modification of workplace architecture, and design of computer networks. Process mapping is helpful for those involved in designing and improving screening mammography programs. Viewing a process (i.e., obtaining a screening mammogram) as a series of steps may allow for the identification of inefficient components that may limit growth.

The role of physician managers in larger multispecialty groups.

Traditionally, medical group practices have relied upon their administrators to supply leadership and innovation. In recent years, however, with the growth of large multispecialty groups, the role of the physician in management has taken on an increased presence and importance. To gain an understanding of the role of physician managers in medical group practices, a questionnaire was developed and sent to 104 large multispecialty groups. Three major hypotheses were tested based on the 84 valid questionnaires returned.