Comparison Between Manual Auditing and a Natural Language Process With Machine Learning Algorithm to Evaluate Faculty Use of Standardized Reports in Radiology

Abstract

PurposeWhen implementing or monitoring department-sanctioned standardized radiology reports, feedback about individual faculty performance has been shown to be a useful driver of faculty compliance. Most commonly, these data are derived from manual audit, which can be both time-consuming and subject to sampling error. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether a software program using natural language processing and machine learning could accurately audit radiologist compliance with the use of standardized reports compared with performed manual audits. MethodsRadiology reports from a 1-month period were loaded into such a software program, and faculty compliance with use of standardized reports was calculated. For that same period, manual audits were performed (25 reports audited for each of 42 faculty members). The mean compliance rates calculated by automated auditing were then compared with the confidence interval of the mean rate by manual audit. ResultsThe mean compliance rate for use of standardized reports as determined by manual audit was 91.2% with a confidence interval between 89.3% and 92.8%. The mean compliance rate calculated by automated auditing was 92.0%, within that confidence interval. ConclusionThis study shows that by use of natural language processing and machine learning algorithms, an automated analysis can accurately define whether reports are compliant with use of standardized report templates and language, compared with manual audits. This may avoid significant labor costs related to conducting the manual auditing process.