The ACR Mammography Positioning Improvement Collaborative: A Multicenter Improvement Program Within a Learning Network Framework.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE: To share the experience and results of the first cohort of the ACR Mammography Positioning Improvement Collaborative, in which participating sites aimed to increase the mean percentage of screening mammograms meeting the established positioning criteria to 85% or greater and show at least modest evidence of improvement at each site by the end of the improvement program. METHODS: The sites comprising the first cohort of the collaborative were selected on the basis of strength of local leadership support, intra-organizational relationships, access to data and analytic support, and experience with quality improvement initiatives. During the improvement program, participating sites organized their teams, developed goals, gathered data, evaluated their current state, identified key drivers and root causes of their problems, and developed and tested interventions. A standardized image quality scoring system was also established. The impact of the interventions implemented at each site was assessed by tracking the percentage of screening mammograms meeting overall passing criteria over time. RESULTS: Six organizations were selected to participate as the first cohort, beginning with participation in the improvement program. Interventions developed and implemented at each site during the program resulted in improvement in the average percentage of screening mammograms meeting overall passing criteria per week from a collaborative mean of 51% to 86%, with four of six sites meeting or exceeding the target mean performance of 85% by the end of the improvement program. Afterward, all respondents to the postprogram survey indicated that the program was a positive experience. CONCLUSION: Using a structured improvement program within a learning network framework, the first cohort of the collaborative demonstrated that improvement in mammography positioning performance can be achieved at multiple sites simultaneously and validated the hypothesis that local sites' shared experiences, insights, and learnings would not only improve performance but would also build a community of improvers collaborating to create the best experience for technologists, staff, and patients.

Improving Prostate MR Image Quality in Practice-Initial Results From the ACR Prostate MR Image Quality Improvement Collaborative.

OBJECTIVE: Variability in prostate MRI quality is an increasingly recognized problem that negatively affects patient care. This report aims to describe the results and key learnings of the first cohort of the ACR Learning Network Prostate MR Image Quality Improvement Collaborative. METHODS: Teams from five organizations in the United States were trained on a structured improvement method. After reaching a consensus on image quality and auditing their images using the Prostate Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL) system, teams conducted a current state analysis to identify barriers to obtaining high-quality images. Through plan-do-study-act cycles involving frontline staff, each site designed and tested interventions targeting image quality key drivers. The percentage of examinations meeting quality criteria (ie, PI-QUAL score ≥4) was plotted on a run chart, and project progress was reviewed in weekly meetings. At the collaborative level, the goal was to increase the percentage of examinations with PI-QUAL ≥4 to at least 85%. RESULTS: Across 2,380 examinations audited, the mean weekly rates of prostate MR examinations meeting image quality criteria increased from 67% (range: 60%-74%) at baseline to 87% (range: 80%-97%) upon program completion. The most commonly employed interventions were MR protocol adjustments, development and implementation of patient preparation instructions, personnel training, and development of an auditing process mechanism. CONCLUSION: A learning network model, in which organizations share knowledge and work together toward a common goal, can improve prostate MR image quality at multiple sites simultaneously. The inaugural cohort's key learnings provide a road map for improvement on a broader scale.

American College of Radiology initiatives on prostate magnetic resonance imaging quality.

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has become integral to diagnosing and managing patients with suspected or confirmed prostate cancer. However, the benefits of utilizing MRI can be hindered by quality issues during imaging acquisition, interpretation, and reporting. As the utilization of prostate MRI continues to increase in clinical practice, the variability in MRI quality and how it can negatively impact patient care have become apparent. The American College of Radiology (ACR) has recognized this challenge and developed several initiatives to address the issue of inconsistent MRI quality and ensure that imaging centers deliver high-quality patient care. These initiatives include the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS), developed in collaboration with an international panel of experts and members of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR), the Prostate MR Image Quality Improvement Collaborative, which is part of the ACR Learning Network, the ACR Prostate Cancer MRI Center Designation, and the ACR Appropriateness Criteria. In this article, we will discuss the importance of these initiatives in establishing quality assurance and quality control programs for prostate MRI and how they can improve patient outcomes.

Current State of Peer Learning in Radiology: A Survey of ACR Members.

PURPOSE: Peer learning (PL) programs seek to improve upon the limitations of score-based peer review and incorporate modern approaches to improve patient care. The aim of this study was to further understand the landscape of PL among members of the ACR in the first quarter of 2022. METHODS: Members of the ACR were surveyed to evaluate the incidence, current practices, perceptions, and outcomes of PL in radiology practice. The survey was administered via e-mail to 20,850 ACR members. The demographic and practice characteristics of the 1,153 respondents (6%) were similar to those of the ACR radiologist membership and correspond to a normal distribution of the population of radiologists and can therefore be described as representative of that population. Therefore, the error range for the results from this survey is ±2.9% at a 95% confidence level. RESULTS: Among the total sample, 610 respondents (53%) currently use PL, and 334 (29%) do not. Users of PL are younger (mode age ranges, 45-54 years for users and 55-64 years for nonusers; P < .01), more likely to be female (29% vs 23%, P < .05), and more likely to practice in urban settings (52% vs 40%, P = .0002). Users of PL feel that it supports an improved culture of safety and wellness (543 of 610 [89%]) and fosters continuous improvement initiatives (523 of 610 [86%]). Users of PL are more likely than nonusers to identify learning opportunities from routine clinical practice (83% vs 50%, P < .00001), engage in programming inclusive of more team members, and implement more practice improvement projects (P < .00001). PL users' net promoter score of 65% strongly suggests that users of PL are highly likely to recommend the program to colleagues. CONCLUSIONS: Radiologists across a breadth of radiology practices are engaged in PL activities, which are perceived to align with emerging principles of improving health care and enhance culture, quality, and engagement.

The ACR Learning Network: Facilitating Local Performance Improvement Through Shared Learning.

PURPOSE: The ACR Learning Network was established to test the viability of the learning network model in radiology. In this report, the authors review the learning network concept, introduce the ACR Learning Network and its components, and report progress to date and plans for the future. METHODS: Patterned after institutional programs developed by the principal investigator, the ACR Learning Network was composed of four distinct improvement collaboratives. Initial participating sites were solicited through broad program advertisement. Candidate programs were selected on the basis of assessments of local leadership support, experience with quality improvement initiatives, intraorganizational relationships, and access to data and analytic support. Participation began with completing a 27-week formal quality improvement training and project support program, with local teams reporting weekly progress on a common performance measure. RESULTS: Four improvement collaborative topics were chosen for the initial cohort with the following numbers of participating sites: mammography positioning (6), prostate MR image quality (6), lung cancer screening (6), and follow-up on recommendations for management of incidental findings (4). To date, all sites have remained actively engaged and have progressed in an expected fashion. A detailed report of the results of the improvement phase will be provided in a future publication. CONCLUSIONS: To date, the ACR Learning Network has successfully achieved planned milestones outlined in the program's plan, with preparation under way for the second and third cohorts. By providing a shared platform for improvement training and knowledge sharing, the authors are optimistic that the network may facilitate widespread performance improvement in radiology on a number of topics for years to come.

ACR-RADS Programs Current State and Future Opportunities: Defining a Governance Structure to Enable Sustained Success.

In the spring of 2021, the ACR approved a proposal to improve the consistency, transparency, and administrative oversight of the ACR Reporting and Data Systems (RADS). A working group of experts and stakeholders was convened to draft this governance document. Major advances include (1) forming a RADS Steering Committee, (2) establishing minimum requirements and evidence standards for new and existing RADS, and (3) outlining a governance structure and communication strategy for RADS.

Utilization and Cancer Yield of Probably Benign Assessment Category in the National Mammography Database: 2009 to 2018.

PURPOSE: Data on utilization rate and cancer yield of BI-RADS® category 3 in routine clinical practice in diagnostic mammography are sparse. The aim of this study was to determine utilization rate and cancer yield of BI-RADS 3 in diagnostic mammography in the ACR National Mammography Database (NMD). METHODS: Retrospective analysis of NMD mammograms from January 1, 2009, to June 30, 2018, was performed. BI-RADS 3 utilization rate in diagnostic setting was calculated and stratified by patient, facility, and examination-level variables. Patient-level cancer yield was calculated among women with BI-RADS 3 assessment and adequate follow-up (imaging follow-up ≥24 months or biopsy). Logistic regression was performed to assess the odds of utilization of BI-RADS 3, with respect to facility, examination, and patient variables, and the odds of malignancy among patients with probably benign findings. Chi-square and t tests were used to determine significance (P < .05). RESULTS: Data from 19,443,866 mammograms from 500 NMD facilities across 31 states were analyzed, of which 3,039,952 were diagnostic mammograms. Utilization rate of BI-RADS 3 was 15.5% (470,155 of 3,039,952) in the diagnostic setting. There was a statistically significant difference in BI-RADS 3 utilization rate across all collected variables (P < .001). Patient-level cancer yield at 2-year follow-up was 0.91% (2,009 of 220,672; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87%-0.95%) in the diagnostic setting. Patient and examination variables associated with significantly higher likelihood of malignancy included calcifications (odds ratio, 4.27; 95% CI, 2.43-7.51), patient age > 70 years (odds ratio, 3.77; 95% CI, 2.49-5.7), and presence of prior comparisons (odds ratio, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.07-1.42). CONCLUSIONS: In the NMD, BI-RADS 3 assessment was common in diagnostic mammography (15.5%), with an overall cancer yield of 0.91%, less than the benchmark of 2%. Utilization trends in diagnostic mammography warrant further research for optimization of use.

U.S. Diagnostic Reference Levels and Achievable Doses for 10 Pediatric CT Examinations.

Background Diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) and achievable doses (ADs) were developed for the 10 most commonly performed pediatric CT examinations in the United States using the American College of Radiology Dose Index Registry. Purpose To develop robust, current, national DRLs and ADs for the 10 most commonly performed pediatric CT examinations as a function of patient age and size. Materials and Methods Data on 10 pediatric (ie, patients aged 18 years and younger) CT examinations performed between 2016 and 2020 at 1625 facilities were analyzed. For head and neck examinations, dose indexes were analyzed based on patient age; for body examinations, dose indexes were analyzed for patient age and effective diameter. Data from 1 543 535 examinations provided medians for AD and 75th percentiles for DRLs for volume CT dose index (CTDIvol), dose-length product (DLP), and size-specific dose estimate (SSDE). Results Of all facilities analyzed, 66% of the facilities (1068 of 1625) were community hospitals, 16% (264 of 1625) were freestanding centers, 9.5% (154 of 1625) were academic facilities, and 3.5% (57 of 1625) were dedicated children's hospitals. Fifty-two percent of the patients (798 577 of 1 543 535) were boys, and 48% (744 958 of 1 543 535) were girls. The median age of patients was 14 years (boys, 13 years; girls, 15 years). The head was the most frequent anatomy examined with CT (876 655 of 1 543 535 examinations [57%]). For head without contrast material CT examinations, the age-based CTDIvol AD ranged from 19 to 46 mGy, and DRL ranged from 23 to 55 mGy, with both AD and DRL increasing with age. For body examinations, DRLs and ADs for size-based CTDIvol, SSDE, and DLP increased consistently with the patient's effective diameter. Conclusion Diagnostic reference levels and achievable doses as a function of patient age and effective diameter were developed for the 10 most commonly performed CT pediatric examinations using American College of Radiology Dose Index Registry data. These benchmarks can guide CT facilities in adjusting pediatric CT protocols and resultant doses for their patients. © RSNA, 2021 An earlier incorrect version appeared online. This article was corrected on October 29, 2021.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Methodology.

The ACR Appropriateness Criteria® (AC) are evidence-based guidelines that guide physicians on appropriate image ordering. The AC development and revision process follows a transparent methodology that includes the systematic analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals and the application of well-established guidelines standards (the Institute of Medicine's Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust) and methodologies (the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) to rate the benefits and potential risks, or appropriateness, of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In the October 2020 release, the methodology is applied in the development of 198 AC documents covering 1,760 clinical scenarios to make more than 8,815 recommendations, authored by more than 600 members representing multiple expert societies, and using more than 6,200 references. The ACR is recognized as a qualified provider-led entity by CMS for the development of appropriate use criteria. This paper describes the methodology and illustrates adherence to the process in the development of the AC.

Radiation Dose Reduction in Kidney Stone CT: A Randomized, Facility-Based Intervention.

OBJECTIVE: Kidney stones are common, tend to recur, and afflict a young population. Despite evidence and recommendations, adoption of reduced-radiation dose CT (RDCT) for kidney stone CT (KSCT) is slow. We sought to design and test an intervention to improve adoption of RDCT protocols for KSCT using a randomized facility-based intervention. METHODS: Facilities contributing at least 40 KSCTs to the American College of Radiology dose index registry (DIR) during calendar year 2015 were randomized to intervention or control groups. The Dose Optimization for Stone Evaluation intervention included customized CME modules, personalized consultation, and protocol recommendations for RDCT. Dose length product (DLP) of all KSCTs was recorded at baseline (2015) and compared with 2017, 2018, and 2019. Change in mean DLP was compared between facilities that participated (intervened-on), facilities randomized to intervention that did not participate (intervened-off), and control facilities. Difference-in-difference between intervened-on and control facilities is reported before and after intervention. RESULTS: Of 314 eligible facilities, 155 were randomized to intervention and 159 to control. There were 25 intervened-on facilities, 71 intervened-off facilities, and 96 control facilities. From 2015 to 2017, there was a drop of 110 mGy ∙ cm (a 16% reduction) in the mean DLP in the intervened-on group, which was significantly lower compared with the control group (P < .05). The proportion of RDCTs increased for each year in the intervened-on group relative to the other groups for all 3 years (P < .01). DISCUSSION: The Dose Optimization for Stone Evaluation intervention resulted in a significant (P < .05) and persistent reduction in mean radiation doses for engaged facilities performing KSCTs.

Radiologist Characteristics Associated with Interpretive Performance of Screening Mammography: A National Mammography Database (NMD) Study.

Background Factors affecting radiologists' performance in screening mammography interpretation remain poorly understood. Purpose To identify radiologists characteristics that affect screening mammography interpretation performance. Materials and Methods This retrospective study included 1223 radiologists in the National Mammography Database (NMD) from 2008 to 2019 who could be linked to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) datasets. NMD screening performance metrics were extracted. Acceptable ranges were defined as follows: recall rate (RR) between 5% and 12%; cancer detection rate (CDR) of at least 2.5 per 1000 screening examinations; positive predictive value of recall (PPV1) between 3% and 8%; positive predictive value of biopsies recommended (PPV2) between 20% and 40%; positive predictive value of biopsies performed (PPV3) between the 25th and 75th percentile of study sample; invasive CDR of at least the 25th percentile of the study sample; and percentage of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of at least the 25th percentile of the study sample. Radiologist characteristics extracted from CMS datasets included demographics, subspecialization, and clinical practice patterns. Multivariable stepwise logistic regression models were performed to identify characteristics independently associated with acceptable performance for the seven metrics. The most influential characteristics were defined as those independently associated with the majority of the metrics (at least four). Results Relative to radiologists practicing in the Northeast, those in the Midwest were more likely to achieve acceptable RR, PPV1, PPV2, and CDR (odds ratio [OR], 1.4-2.5); those practicing in the West were more likely to achieve acceptable RR, PPV2, and PPV3 (OR, 1.7-2.1) but less likely to achieve acceptable invasive CDR (OR, 0.6). Relative to general radiologists, breast imagers were more likely to achieve acceptable PPV1, invasive CDR, percentage DCIS, and CDR (OR, 1.4-4.4). Those performing diagnostic mammography were more likely to achieve acceptable PPV1, PPV2, PPV3, invasive CDR, and CDR (OR, 1.9-2.9). Those performing breast US were less likely to achieve acceptable PPV1, PPV2, percentage DCIS, and CDR (OR, 0.5-0.7). Conclusion The geographic location of the radiology practice, subspecialization in breast imaging, and performance of diagnostic mammography are associated with better screening mammography performance; performance of breast US is associated with lower performance. ©RSNA, 2021 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Predicted Cost Savings Achieved by the Radiology Support, Communication and Alignment Network from Reducing Medical Imaging Overutilization in the Medicare Population.

OBJECTIVE: The Radiology Support, Communication and Alignment Network (R-SCAN) is a quality improvement program through which patients, referring clinicians, and radiologists collaborate to improve imaging appropriateness based on Choosing Wisely recommendations and ACR Appropriateness Criteria. R-SCAN was shown previously to increase the odds of obtaining an appropriate, higher patient or diagnostic value, imaging study. In the current study, we aimed to estimate the potential imaging cost savings associated with R-SCAN use for the Medicare population. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The R-SCAN data set was used to determine the proportion of appropriate and lesser value imaging studies performed, as well as the percent change in the total number of imaging studies performed, before and after an R-SCAN educational intervention. Using a separate CMS data set, we then identified the total number of relevant imaging studies and associated total costs using a 5% sample of Medicare beneficiaries in 2017. We applied R-SCAN proportions to the CMS data set to estimate the potential impact of the R-SCAN interventions across a broader Medicare population. RESULTS: We observed a substantial reduction in the costs associated with lesser value imaging in the R-SCAN cohort, totaling $260,000 over 3.5 months. When extrapolated to the Medicare population, the potential cost reductions associated with the decrease in lesser value imaging totaled $433 million yearly. CONCLUSION: If expanded broadly, R-SCAN interventions can result in substantial savings to the Medicare program.

CT Volumes from 2,398 Radiology Practices in the United States: A Real-Time Indicator of the Effect of COVID-19 on Routine Care, January to September 2020.

PURPOSE: To determine the effect of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on CT volumes in the United States during and after the first wave of the pandemic. METHODS: CT volumes from 2,398 US radiology practices participating in the ACR Dose Index Registry from January 1, 2020, to September 30, 2020, were analyzed. Data were compared to projected CT volumes using 2019 normative data and analyzed with respect to time since government orders, population-normalized positive COVID-19 tests, and attributed deaths. Data were stratified by state population density, unemployment status, and race. RESULTS: There were 16,198,830 CT examinations (2,398 practices). Volume nadir occurred an average of 32 days after each state-of-emergency declaration and 12 days after each stay-at-home order. At nadir, the projected volume loss was 38,043 CTs per day (of 71,626 CTs per day; 53% reduction). Over the entire study period, there were 3,689,874 fewer CT examinations performed than predicted (of 18,947,969; 19% reduction). There was less reduction in states with smaller population density (15% [169,378 of 1,142,247; quartile 1] versus 21% [1,894,152 of 9,140,689; quartile 4]) and less reduction in states with a lower insured unemployed proportion (13% [279,331 of 2,071,251; quartile 1] versus 23% [1,753,521 of 7,496,443; quartile 4]). By September 30, CT volume had returned to 84% (59,856 of 71,321) of predicted; recovery of CT volume occurred as positive COVID-19 tests rose and deaths were in decline. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 substantially reduced US CT volume, reflecting delayed and deferred care, especially in states with greater unemployment. Partial volume recovery occurred despite rising positive COVID-19 tests.

Transitioning From Peer Review to Peer Learning: Report of the 2020 Peer Learning Summit.

Since its introduction nearly 20 years ago, score-based peer review has not been shown to have meaningful impact on or be a valid measurement instrument of radiologist performance. A new paradigm has emerged, peer learning, which is a group activity in which expert professionals review one another's work, actively give and receive feedback in a constructive manner, teach and learn from one another, and mutually commit to improving performance as individuals, as a group, and as a system. Many radiology practices are beginning to transition from score-based peer review to peer learning. To address challenges faced by these practices, a 1-day summit was convened at Harvard Medical School in January 2020, sponsored by the ACR. Several important themes emerged. Elements considered key to a peer-learning program include broad group participation, active identification of learning opportunities, individual feedback, peer-learning conferences, link with process and system improvement activities, preservation of organizational culture, sequestration of peer-learning activities from evaluation mechanisms, and program management. Radiologists and practice leaders are encouraged to develop peer-learning programs tailored to their local practice environment and foster a positive organizational culture. Health system administrators should support active peer-learning programs in the place of score-based peer review. Accrediting organizations should formally recognize peer learning as an acceptable form of peer review and specify minimum criteria for peer-learning programs. IT system vendors should actively collaborate with radiology organizations to develop solutions that support the efficient and effective management of local peer-learning programs.

Assessment of the Radiology Support, Communication and Alignment Network to Reduce Medical Imaging Overutilization: A Multipractice Cohort Study.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine whether participation in Radiology Support, Communication and Alignment Network (R-SCAN) results in a reduction of inappropriate imaging in a wide range of real-world clinical environments. METHODS: This quality improvement study used imaging data from 27 US academic and private practices that completed R-SCAN projects between January 25, 2015, and August 8, 2018. Each project consisted of baseline, educational (intervention), and posteducational phases. Baseline and posteducational imaging cases were rated as high, medium, or low value on the basis of validated ACR Appropriateness Criteria®. Four cohorts were generated: a comprehensive cohort that included all eligible practices and three topic-specific cohorts that included practices that completed projects of specific Choosing Wisely topics (pulmonary embolism, adnexal cyst, and low back pain). Changes in the proportion of high-value cases after R-SCAN intervention were assessed for each cohort using generalized estimating equation logistic regression, and changes in the number of low-value cases were analyzed using Poisson regression. RESULTS: Use of R-SCAN in the comprehensive cohort resulted in a greater proportion of high-value imaging cases (from 57% to 79%; odds ratio, 2.69; 95% confidence interval, 1.50-4.86; P = .001) and 345 fewer low-value cases after intervention (incidence rate ratio, 0.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.29-0.70; P < .001). Similar changes in proportion of high-value cases and number of low-value cases were found for the pulmonary embolism, adnexal cyst, and low back pain cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: R-SCAN participation was associated with a reduced likelihood of inappropriate imaging and is thus a promising tool to enhance the quality of patient care and promote wise use of health care resources.

Patient Exposure from Radiologic and Nuclear Medicine Procedures in the United States: Procedure Volume and Effective Dose for the Period 2006-2016.

Background Comprehensive assessments of the frequency and associated doses from radiologic and nuclear medicine procedures are rarely conducted. The use of these procedures and the population-based radiation dose increased remarkably from 1980 to 2006. Purpose To determine the change in per capita radiation exposure in the United States from 2006 to 2016. Materials and Methods The U.S. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements conducted a retrospective assessment for 2016 and compared the results to previously published data for the year 2006. Effective dose values for procedures were obtained from the literature, and frequency data were obtained from commercial, governmental, and professional society data. Results In the United States in 2006, an estimated 377 million diagnostic and interventional radiologic examinations were performed. This value remained essentially the same for 2016 even though the U.S. population had increased by about 24 million people. The number of CT scans performed increased from 67 million to 84 million, but the number of other procedures (eg, diagnostic fluoroscopy) and nuclear medicine procedures decreased from 17 million to 13.5 million. The number of dental radiographic and dental CT examinations performed was estimated to be about 320 million in 2016. Using the tissue-weighting factors from Publication 60 of the International Commission on Radiological Protection, the U.S. annual individual (per capita) effective dose from diagnostic and interventional medical procedures was estimated to have been 2.9 mSv in 2006 and 2.3 mSv in 2016, with the collective doses being 885 000 and 755 000 person-sievert, respectively. Conclusion The trend from 1980 to 2006 of increasing dose from medical radiation has reversed. Estimated 2016 total collective effective dose and radiation dose per capita dose are lower than in 2006. © RSNA, 2020 See also the editorial by Einstein in this issue.

Quality and Safety Initiatives for Radiation Safety in Imaging.

There is a substantial infrastructure for quality and safety in radiologic imaging, built over decades, that is available to practices and providers. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of those resources and place them in the context of patient care. Successful application of these resources requires both the technology as well as the culture to use the techniques. We are beginning to see more tools to support the culture change necessary to take advantage of the resources, and increased attention to the patient perspective.