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.

Overcoming Human Barriers to Safety Event Reporting in Radiology.

In high-reliability industries that are dedicated to ensuring safety, safety event reporting is the cornerstone of improvement. However, human factors can interfere with consistent reporting. Common human factors that are barriers to safety event reporting include liability concerns; time constraints; physician autonomy; self-regulation; collegiality; the lack of listening, language training, and/or feedback regarding reported events; unclear responsibilities within safety teams; and a high reporting threshold. Other barriers include fears of challenging authority, being disrespected, retribution, and the creation of a difficult work environment. These factors are reviewed in the health care setting, and the countermeasures that need to be introduced at the frontline employee, leadership employee (physicians and managers), and departmental and organizational levels to create a culture of safety in which all employees feel comfortable raising safety concerns are discussed. ©RSNA, 2019.

Barriers to Safety Event Reporting in an Academic Radiology Department: Authority Gradients and Other Human Factors.

Purpose To investigate barriers to reporting safety concerns in an academic radiology department and to evaluate the role of human factors, including authority gradients, as potential barriers to safety concern reporting. Materials and Methods In this institutional review board-approved, HIPAA-compliant retrospective study, an online questionnaire link was emailed four times to all radiology department staff members (n = 648) at a tertiary care institution. Survey questions included frequency of speaking up about safety concerns, perceived barriers to speaking up, and the annual number of safety concerns that respondents were unsuccessful in reporting. Respondents' sex, role in the department, and length of employment were recorded. Statistical analysis was performed with the Fisher exact test. Results The survey was completed by 363 of the 648 employees (56%). Of those 363 employees, 182 (50%) reported always speaking up about safety concerns, 134 (37%) reported speaking up most of the time, 36 (10%) reported speaking up sometimes, seven (2%) reported rarely speaking up, and four (1%) reported never speaking up. Thus, 50% of employees spoke up about safety concerns less than 100% of the time. The most frequently reported barriers to speaking up included high reporting threshold (69%), reluctance to challenge someone in authority (67%), fear of disrespect (53%), and lack of listening (52%). Conclusion Of employees in a large academic radiology department, 50% do not attain 100% reporting of safety events. The most common human barriers to speaking up are high reporting threshold, reluctance to challenge authority, fear of disrespect, and lack of listening, which suggests that existing authority gradients interfere with full reporting of safety concerns.

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.

Acing the Joint Commission Regulatory Visit: Running an Effective and Compliant Safety Program.

Ensuring the safety of patients and staff is a core effort of all health care organizations. Many regulatory agencies, from The Joint Commission to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, provide policies and guidelines, with relevant metrics to be achieved. Data on safety can be obtained through a variety of mechanisms, including gemba walks, team discussion during safety huddles, audits, and individual employee entries in safety reporting systems. Data can be organized on a scorecard that provides an at-a-glance view of progress and early warning signs of practice drift. In this article, relevant policies are outlined, and instruction on how to achieve compliance with national patient safety goals and regulations that ensure staff safety and Joint Commission ever-readiness are described. Additional critical components of a safety program, such as department commitment, a just culture, and human factors engineering, are discussed. ©RSNA, 2018.

Running a Radiology Residency Program: Strategies for Success.

Running a successful radiology residency program requires departments to navigate the evolving educational landscape at the departmental, institutional, and national levels. To attract the best applicants, departments must invest time and money to support the leadership of the program and its faculty to provide innovative educational opportunities in a positive learning environment while simultaneously complying with all of the requirements of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. The key administrative requirements of a successful radiology residency program are described and can be grouped into (a) essential administrative components, (b) the clinical learning environment review and self-study process, and (c) resident recruitment. Ten specific strategies for running a successful residency program are also presented. The goal is for this article to serve as a guide for not only existing diagnostic and interventional radiology residency programs but also newly formed programs that are in the process of seeking accreditation. ©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.

Impact of Communication Errors in Radiology on Patient Care, Customer Satisfaction, and Work-Flow Efficiency.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of communication errors on patient care, customer satisfaction, and work-flow efficiency and to identify opportunities for quality improvement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a search of our quality assurance database for communication errors submitted from August 1, 2004, through December 31, 2014. Cases were analyzed regarding the step in the imaging process at which the error occurred (i.e., ordering, scheduling, performance of examination, study interpretation, or result communication). The impact on patient care was graded on a 5-point scale from none (0) to catastrophic (4). The severity of impact between errors in result communication and those that occurred at all other steps was compared. Error evaluation was performed independently by two board-certified radiologists. Statistical analysis was performed using the chi-square test and kappa statistics. RESULTS: Three hundred eighty of 422 cases were included in the study. One hundred ninety-nine of the 380 communication errors (52.4%) occurred at steps other than result communication, including ordering (13.9%; n = 53), scheduling (4.7%; n = 18), performance of examination (30.0%; n = 114), and study interpretation (3.7%; n = 14). Result communication was the single most common step, accounting for 47.6% (181/380) of errors. There was no statistically significant difference in impact severity between errors that occurred during result communication and those that occurred at other times (p = 0.29). In 37.9% of cases (144/380), there was an impact on patient care, including 21 minor impacts (5.5%; result communication, n = 13; all other steps, n = 8), 34 moderate impacts (8.9%; result communication, n = 12; all other steps, n = 22), and 89 major impacts (23.4%; result communication, n = 45; all other steps, n = 44). In 62.1% (236/380) of cases, no impact was noted, but 52.6% (200/380) of cases had the potential for an impact. CONCLUSION: Among 380 communication errors in a radiology department, 37.9% had a direct impact on patient care, with an additional 52.6% having a potential impact. Most communication errors (52.4%) occurred at steps other than result communication, with similar severity of impact.

Imaging of Large Airways Disorders.

OBJECTIVE: Recent technical advances, including the routine use of CT thin sections and techniques such as 2D minimum-intensity-projection and 3D volume images, have increased our ability to detect large airways diseases. Furthermore, dedicated CT protocols allow the evaluation of dynamic airway dysfunction. CONCLUSION: With diseases of the large airways more commonly seen in daily practice, it is important that radiologists be familiar with the appearances, differential diagnosis, and clinical implications of these entities.

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.

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.

Radiologic Professionalism in Modern Health Care.

Modern radiology is at the forefront of technological progress in medicine, a position that often places unique challenges on its professional character. This article uses "Medical Professionalism in the New Millennium: A Physician Charter," a document published in 2002 and endorsed by several major radiology organizations, as a lens for exploring professional challenges in modern radiology. The three main tenets of the Charter emphasize patient welfare, patient autonomy, and the reduction of disparities in health care distribution. This article reviews the ways in which modern technology and financial structures potentially create stressors on professionalism in radiology, while highlighting the opportunities they provide for radiologists seeking to fulfill the professional goals articulated in the Charter. Picture archiving and communication systems (PACS) and voice recognition systems have transformed the speed of radiology and enhanced the ability of radiologists to improve patient care but also have brought new tensions to the workplace. Although teleradiology may improve global access to radiologists, it may also promote the commoditization of radiology, which diminishes the professional stature of radiologists. Social media and patient portals provide radiologists with new forums for interacting with the public and patients, potentially promoting patient welfare. However, patient privacy and autonomy are important considerations. Finally, modern financial structures provide radiologists with both entrepreneurial opportunities as well as the temptation for unprofessional conduct. Each of these advances carries the potential for professional growth while testing the professional stature of radiology. By considering the risks and benefits of emerging technologies in the modern radiology world, radiologists can chart an ethical and professional future path.

Honorary authorship in radiologic research articles: do geographic factors influence the frequency?

PURPOSE: To quantify the potential effect of geographic factors on the frequency of honorary authorship in four major radiology journals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this institutional review board-approved study, an electronic survey was sent to first authors of all original research articles published in American Journal of Roentgenology, European Radiology, Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, and Radiology during 2 years (July 2009 through June 2011). Questions addressed guidelines used for determining authorship, perception of honorary authorship, and demographic information. Univariate analysis was performed by using χ(2) tests. Multiple-variable logistic regression models were used to assess independent factors associated with the perception of honorary authorship. RESULTS: Of 1398 first authors, 328 (23.5%) responded. Of these, 91 (27.7%) perceived that at least one coauthor did not make sufficient contributions to merit authorship, and 165 (50.3%) stated that one or more coauthors performed only "nonauthor" tasks according to International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria. The perception of honorary authorship was significantly higher (P ≤ .0001) among respondents from Asia and Europe than from North America and in institutions where a section or department head was automatically listed as coauthor. A significantly lower (P ≤ .0001) perception of honorary authorship was associated with adherence to ICMJE criteria and with policies providing lectures or courses on publication ethics. CONCLUSION: Perceived honorary authorship was substantially higher among respondents from Asia and Europe than from North America. Perceived honorary authorship was lower with adherence to the ICMJE guidelines and policies providing lectures or courses on publication ethics.

Using T2-weighted sequences to more accurately characterize breast masses seen on MRI.

T2-weighted images are a valuable component of the MRI evaluation of breast masses. Edema, hemorrhage, mucus, and cystic fluid within a lesion are clearly depicted on T2-weighted sequences. In general, masses that have high signal intensity on T2-weighted images are benign; however, breast imagers must be aware of such important exceptions as mucinous carcinoma and necrotic tumors.

New Imaging Protocol to Assess Endotracheal Tube Placement: A Case-control Study.

PURPOSE: After intubation, a frontal chest radiograph (CXR) is obtained to assess the endotracheal tube (ETT) position by measuring the ETT tip-to-carina distance. ETT tip location changes with neck position and can be determined by assessing the position of the mandible. As the mandible is typically not visualized on standard CXRs, we developed a new protocol where the mandible is seen on the CXR, hypothesizing that it will improve the accuracy of the ETT position assessment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two groups of intubated patients studied (February 9, 2021 to May 4, 2021): CXR taken in either standard or new protocol (visible mandible required). Two observers independently assessed the images for the neck position (neutral, flexed, and extended) based on the mandible position relative to the vertebral bodies. With the mandible absent (ie, neck position unknown), we established terms: "gray zone" (difficult to assess the ETT position adequately) and "clear zone" (confident recommendation to retract, advance, or maintain ETT position). We compared the rate of confident assessment of the ETT in the standard versus the new protocol. RESULTS: Of 308 patients, 155 had standard CXRs and 153 had the new protocol. Interrater agreements for the distance between the ETT and the carina and mandible height based on vertebral bodies were 0.986 ( P < 0.001) and 0.955 ( P < 0.001), respectively. The mandible was visualized significantly more often ( P < 0.001) with the new protocol (92%; 141/153) than with the standard protocol (21%; 32/155). By visualizing the mandible or the presence of the ETT within the clear zone, a reader could confidently assess the ETT position more often using the new protocol (96.7% vs 51.6%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Mandible visibility on postintubation CXR is helpful for assessing the ETT position. The new protocol resulted in a significant increase in both visualizing the mandible and accurately determining ETT position on postintubation CXR.

Noninfectious inflammatory lung disease: imaging considerations and clues to differential diagnosis.

OBJECTIVE: Noninfectious inflammatory lung diseases represent a spectrum of idiopathic and secondary conditions that may involve the airspaces, vasculature, or interstitium. The most important clinical and pathologic characteristics are reviewed, emphasizing CT findings and potential clues to differential diagnosis. CONCLUSION: Noninfectious inflammatory lung diseases translate into various CT appearances that are important in making the correct diagnosis.

A needs assessment of musculoskeletal fellowship training: a survey of practicing musculoskeletal radiologists.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to conduct a needs assessment of musculo-skeletal radiologists regarding their musculoskeletal training experience and attitude toward a standardized musculoskeletal fellowship curriculum. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An anonymous survey was sent to the Society of Skeletal Radiology membership querying musculoskeletal radiologists' practice patterns, fellowship program, curriculum, and modes of learning. RESULTS: Of 216 respondents (26% response rate), 87% were musculoskeletal fellowship trained. The majority performed MRI, CT, and radiography (99%); arthrography (95%); spine MRI (77%); pediatric musculoskeletal imaging (75%); musculoskeletal ultrasound (63%); and biopsies (62%). During fellowship, 72% read spine MRI; 74% pediatric musculo-skeletal imaging, and 49% musculoskeletal ultrasound (49%); 33% received no spine procedural training. Most felt comfortable performing arthrography, joint injections, and bone and soft-tissue biopsies but not spine biopsies. Of the total, 33% received a curriculum and 67% had no formal feedback and 56% did not evaluate their program. The highest rated program features were teaching by attending physicians (69%), case variety (54%), and procedural training (49%). The lowest rated features were lack of curriculum (57%), lack of structured learning (48%), and lack of mentoring (24%). The favorite mode of learning was one-on-one readout with attending physicians (90%), and 85% agreed that a standardized musculoskeletal fellowship curriculum would benefit musculoskeletal training. CONCLUSION: Although musculoskeletal radiologists believe they were adequately trained for practice, there are perceived deficiencies in spine MRI, pediatric musculoskeletal imaging, and musculoskeletal ultrasound. A standardized musculoskeletal fellowship curriculum would provide improved structure and a defined educational program. Clear expectations, performance assessment, feedback, and programmatic evaluation should be core elements of the training of every musculoskeletal fellow.

Echogenic breast masses at US: to biopsy or not to biopsy?

At ultrasonography (US), purely or predominantly echogenic breast masses are rare. These lesions were once assumed to be benign, but recent data suggest that approximately 0.5% of malignant breast lesions appear echogenic. However, correlation with the mammographic appearance, lesion location, and clinical history allows the need for biopsy to be determined. An echogenic mass that is radiolucent at mammography is benign. An echogenic mass that is not radiolucent at mammography may represent a hematoma, complex seroma, silicone granuloma, abscess, galactocele, or fat necrosis when the appropriate clinical history is present. In these cases, biopsy can usually be avoided. If there is a clinical history of cancer or radiation therapy, biopsy is often indicated to assess for metastasis or angiosarcoma. An echogenic mass in an ectatic duct warrants biopsy to exclude carcinoma. An echogenic skin lesion is most likely benign and can occasionally have peripheral vascularity due to surrounding inflammation. However, a skin lesion with internal vascularity is concerning for metastasis or lymphoma. If there is no suspicious clinical history, suspicious sonographic features or mammographic findings would lead to a recommendation for biopsy. Lesions with nonspecific imaging or clinical features (eg, angiolipoma or pseudoangiomatous stromal hyperplasia) may require biopsy to exclude malignancy.

Practice policy and quality initiatives: strategies for optimizing staff safety in a radiology department.

Employees in a radiology department are exposed to multiple risks, including injuries due to radiation exposure, poor ergonomics, or repetitive stress; those caused by wearing lead aprons or moving heavy equipment for portable studies; and needle sticks resulting in exposure to body fluids. Strategies to mitigate or prevent such risks include ergonomics initiatives for radiologists and technologists, appointment of a radiation safety officer to ensure compliance with radiation dose guidelines and policies, and use of equipment that prevents exposure to body fluids. In addition, there are regulations and guidelines from various government bodies on occupational radiation dose limits, handling of isotopes and chemotherapy agents, contact with patients with airborne infections, and needle stick injuries. A comprehensive staff safety program was developed for a clinical radiology department to provide a framework for staff injury prevention. The important parts of a staff safety program are observational safety audits and walkabouts and a safety reporting tool for employees. Faculty education about workplace environmental risks and their consequences, compliance with policies and guidelines on environmental safety, and development of a culture that encourages surveillance, reporting, and prompt action will go a long way toward improving overall safety for all workers in a radiology department.