Radiology Quality Improvement Research Articles

Quality Improvement in Interventional Radiology: A Critical Look at Modern Bleeding Risk Guideline Implementation.

Quality Improvement in Interventional Radiology: A Critical Look at Modern Bleeding Risk Guideline Implementation.

Radiology Quality Improvement: Lessons From the “Toyota Way”

A medical student applying for radiology residency was formerly employed by Toyota as an engineer. During that time, he learned that production-line employees found it difficult to install moonroofs, experiencing back pain after climbing into and out of trucks 120 times per day. He walked the production line and talked with team members, brainstorming process improvement ideas and developing a solution, which he reviewed and reflected on each day. Within months, his team rectified the ergonomic problems and designed and installed an in-line quality assessment device that improved workers’ experiences and saved the company over $8 million per year by reducing error rates.

The Essentials of Quality Improvement in Radiology

The Essentials of Quality Improvement in Radiology

Society of Interventional Radiology Quality Improvement Standards on Percutaneous Ablation of Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer and Metastatic Disease to the Lungs

PurposeTo provide guidance on quality improvement thresholds for outcomes and complications of image-guided thermal ablation for the treatment of early stage non-small cell lung cancer, recurrent lung cancer, and metastatic disease. Materials and MethodsA multidisciplinary writing group conducted a comprehensive literature search to identify studies on the topic of interest. Data were extracted from relevant studies and thresholds were derived from a calculation of 2 standard deviations from the weighted mean of each outcome. A modified Delphi technique was used to achieve consensus agreement on the thresholds. ResultsData from 29 studies, including systematic reviews and meta-analyses, retrospective cohort studies, and single-arm trials were extracted for calculation of the thresholds. The expert writing group agreed on thresholds for local control, overall survival and adverse events associated with image-guided thermal ablation. ConclusionSIR recommends utilizing the indicator thresholds to review and assess the efficacy of ongoing quality improvement programs. When performance falls above or below specific thresholds, consideration of a review of policies and procedures to assess for potential causes, and to implement changes in practices, may be warranted.

Retrospective Analysis of the Safety and Outcomes of Percutaneous Radiologic Gastrostomy in Obese vs Nonobese Patients.

The purpose of this study is to compare the safety and outcomes of percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy (PRG) in obese vs nonobese patients. This is an institutional review board-approved retrospective study of 109 patients (male:female, 68:41; mean age, 64.7 years; range, 21-94 years) who underwent PRG with or without gastropexy at a single academic medical center between 2015 and 2018. Body mass index (BMI) of ≥30 kg/m2 was defined as obese. Patient demographics, indications, technical success, intraoperative variables, and major/minor complications were analyzed. Major and minor complications occurring within 30 days of the procedure were recorded and categorized based on the Society of Interventional Radiology Quality Improvement guidelines. Of 109 patients included in the study, 22.9% (n = 25) of patients were obese (average BMI, 34.6 kg/m2 ; range, 30-50). Overall technical success in the obese and nonobese groups was 100% each. In the obese vs nonobese group, major and minor complications were not significantly different. There were also no significant differences in procedure time, fluoroscopy time, or contrast volume. However, mean peak skin dose was significantly increased in the obese group vs nonobese group (190.3 ± 224.2 vs 59.1 ± 71.1 mGy; P < .0001). PRG is a safe procedure in obese patients with similar technical success, major and minor complication rates, procedure time, fluoroscopy time, and contrast volume. However, PRG is associated with increased radiation dose with obese patients; therefore, optimal methods of radiation protection should be utilized.

Society of Interventional Radiology Quality Improvement Standards for Percutaneous Transcatheter Embolization

Percutaneous embolization procedures are commonly performed by interventional radiologists. This quality improvement (QI) standard was first published in 2010 (1), and this document represents the second update. Since the 2010 standards, many additional randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, and observational studies have been published on transcatheter embolization for various disease entities, further establishing embolization as an effective treatment. Additionally, the indications of embolization have expanded with newer procedures, like prostatic embolization for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), and emerging procedures, such as left gastric artery embolization for the treatment of obesity and genicular artery embolization for the treatment of pain related to osteoarthritis (OA).

STARD Adherence in an Interventional Radiology Guideline for Diagnostic Arteriography.

Objective: To assess the quality of reporting in diagnostic accuracy studies (DAS) referenced by the Quality Improvement Guidelines for Diagnostic Arteriography and their adherence to the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) statement.Materials and Methods: Citations specific to the Society of Interventional Radiology's Quality Improvement Guidelines for Diagnostic Arteriography were collected. Using the 34-item STARD checklist, two authors in a duplicate and blinded fashion documented the number of items reported per diagnostic accuracy study. Authors met, and any discrepancies were resolved in a resolution meeting.Results: Of the 26 diagnostic accuracy studies included, the mean number of STARD items reported was 17.8 (SD ± 3.1). The median adherence was 18 (IQR, 17-19) items. Ten articles were published prior to 2003, the original date of STARD publication, and 16 articles were published after 2003. The mean number of reported items for the articles published prior to STARD 2003, and after STARD 2003 was 17.4 (SD ± 2.4) and 18.1 (SD ± 3.5), respectively. There were 14 STARD items that demonstrated an adherence of < 25%, and 13 an adherence > 75%.Conclusion: The dichotomous distribution of adherence to the STARD statement by DAS investigated demonstrates that areas of deficient reporting may be present and require attention to ensure complete and transparent reporting in the future.

Commentary on “Society of Interventional Radiology Quality Improvement Standards for Image-Guided Percutaneous Drainage and Aspiration of Abscesses and Fluid Collections”

Commentary on “Society of Interventional Radiology Quality Improvement Standards for Image-Guided Percutaneous Drainage and Aspiration of Abscesses and Fluid Collections”

Commentary on the Recently Published Society of Interventional Radiology Quality Improvement Standards on Percutaneous Ablation in Renal Cell Carcinoma: Prime Time for Standardized Approach and Quality Improvement.

Commentary on the Recently Published Society of Interventional Radiology Quality Improvement Standards on Percutaneous Ablation in Renal Cell Carcinoma: Prime Time for Standardized Approach and Quality Improvement.

Collaborative Opportunities for Radiology Quality Improvement Projects

Collaborative Opportunities for Radiology Quality Improvement Projects

An International Survey of Quality and Safety Programs in Radiology.

The aim of this study was to determine the status of radiology quality improvement programs in a variety of selected nations worldwide. A survey was developed by select members of the International Economics Committee of the American College of Radiology on quality programs and was distributed to committee members. Members responded on behalf of their country. The 51-question survey asked about 12 different quality initiatives which were grouped into 4 themes: departments, users, equipment, and outcomes. Respondents reported whether a designated type of quality initiative was used in their country and answered subsequent questions further characterizing it. The response rate was 100% and represented Australia, Canada, China, England, France, Germany, India, Israel, Japan, the Netherlands, Russia, and the United States. The most frequently reported quality initiatives were imaging appropriateness (91.7%) and disease registries (91.7%), followed by key performance indicators (83.3%) and morbidity and mortality rounds (83.3%). Peer review, equipment accreditation, radiation dose monitoring, and structured reporting were reported by 75.0% of respondents, followed by 58.3% of respondents for quality audits and critical incident reporting. The least frequently reported initiatives included Lean/Kaizen exercises and physician performance assessments, implemented by 25.0% of respondents. There is considerable diversity in the quality programs used throughout the world, despite some influence by national and international organizations, from whom further guidance could increase uniformity and optimize patient care in radiology.

Society of Interventional Radiology Quality Improvement Standards on Percutaneous Ablation in Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Society of Interventional Radiology Quality Improvement Standards on Percutaneous Ablation in Renal Cell Carcinoma.

The Application of Machine Learning to Quality Improvement Through the Lens of the Radiology Value Network

Recent advances in machine learning and artificial intelligence offer promising applications to radiology quality improvement initiatives as they relate to the radiology value network. Coordination within the interlocking web of systems, events, and stakeholders in the radiology value network may be mitigated though standardization, automation, and a focus on workflow efficiency. In this article the authors present applications of these various strategies via use cases for quality improvement projects at different points in the radiology value network. In addition, the authors discuss opportunities for machine-learning applications in data aggregation as opposed to traditional applications in data extraction.

American Urological Association, American College of Emergency Physicians and American College of Radiology Quality Improvement Summit 2017: Challenges and Opportunities for Stewardship of Urological Imaging.

Since 2014 the AUA (American Urological Association) has convened several Quality Improvement Summits to provide education and promote dialogue around issues of quality improvement and patient safety. The 2017 Summit, Challenges and Opportunities for Stewardship of Urological Imaging, organized in partnership with the American College of Radiology and the American College of Emergency Physicians, highlighted opportunities for collaborative improvement in the value, safety and quality of imaging for patients with urological conditions. The Summit was held at AUA headquarters in Linthicum, Maryland on October 21, 2017. Each talk, panel and working group held during the summit highlighted gaps in care being addressed by physician led stewardship initiatives in imaging, in general, as well as multiple specific examples related to prostate cancer and urinary stone disease. Presentations facilitated information exchange on quality efforts between clinicians across disciplines and care settings and served to educate urology practitioners, primary care physicians, and specialists about existing patient centered quality improvement programs. This exchange serves to accelerate adoption of evidence-based practices and brings together stakeholder organizations to form partnerships that facilitate the further development of research and policy agendas to advance physician led stewardship of advanced imaging across emergency medicine, radiology and urology. In parallel, this meeting established a consortium to develop and disseminate tools for facilitating organizational improvement activities needed to enhance the quality and safety of medical care.

Survey of peer review programs among pediatric radiologists: report from the SPR Quality and Safety Committee.

During the last 15years, peer review has been widely incorporated into radiology quality improvement programs. However, current implementations are variable and carry concerns, including subjectivity of numerical scores and a sense of merely satisfying regulatory requirements. The Society for Pediatric Radiology (SPR) Quality and Safety Committee sought to evaluate the state of peer review programs in pediatric radiology practices, including implementation methods, perceived functions, strengths and weaknesses, and opportunities for improvement. We distributed an online 16-question survey to SPR members. Questions pertained to the type of peer review system, the use of numerical scores and comments, how feedback on discordances is given and received, and the use of peer learning conferences. We collected 219 responses (15% of survey invitations), 80% of which were from children's hospitals. Fifty percent of respondents said they use a picture archiving and communication system (PACS)-integrated peer review system. Comment-enhanced feedback for interpretive discordances was either very important or somewhat important to performance improvement in 86% of responses, compared to 48% with a similar perception of numerical scores. Sixty-eight percent of respondents said they either rarely or never check their numerical scores, and 82% either strongly or somewhat agreed that comments are more effective feedback than numerical scores. Ninety-three percent either strongly or somewhat agreed that peer learning conferences would be beneficial to their practice. Forty-eight percent thought that their current peer review system should be modified. Survey results demonstrate that peer review systems in pediatric radiology practices are implemented variably, and nearly half of respondents believe their systems should be modified. Most respondents prefer feedback in the form of comments and peer learning conferences, which are thought to be more beneficial for performance improvement than numerical scores.

Abstract No. 709 Quality improvement in interventional radiology: techniques to improve patient satisfaction

Abstract No. 709 Quality improvement in interventional radiology: techniques to improve patient satisfaction

The role of comprehensive clinical audits in quality improvement in diagnostic radiology

There is much interest in QA processes and quality improvement in diagnostic radiology, driven by a number of factors. These include the high cost of radiological equipment, the ever increasing complexity of examination equipment and examination procedures due to technical advances, an acknowledgement of the possibility of increasing doses to patients, and the importance of radiological diagnosis to patient management within the health care. The importance of these matters has been acknowledged within Europe through a European Council directive and by the International Atomic Energy Agency through the development of the QUAADRIL audit process. Clinical audit involves evaluation of data, documents and resources to check performance against standards. It is essentially a process of fact finding and interpretation and, as such, provides an efficient tool for improvement of quality. The purpose of a multidisciplinary clinical audit can be generally summarized as to improve the quality of patient care; promote the effective use of resources; enhancing the provision and organization of clinical services; and to further professional education and training The principles and criteria for good practice of the medical physics aspects of radiology involve the available facility infrastructure, radiation protection and safety, imaging equipment QA processes, optimization in clinical practice, dosimetry, and instrumentation and calibration. All policies and procedures should be documented and regularly updated, and be available to staff at all times. This presentation will describe the QUAADRIL clinical audit process and summarise some of the key findings from the application of the audit tool in various centres worldwide.

Project Management for Quality Improvement in Radiology.

This article outlines a structured approach for applying project management principles to quality improvement in radiology. We highlight the framework we use for managing improvement projects in our department and review basic project management principles. Project management involves techniques for executing projects effectively and efficiently. We recognize the following phases for managing improvement projects: idea, project evaluation and selection, role assignment, planning, improvement, and sustaining improvement.

Use of a Referring Physician Survey to Direct and Evaluate Department-Wide Radiology Quality Improvement Efforts

Use of a Referring Physician Survey to Direct and Evaluate Department-Wide Radiology Quality Improvement Efforts

Approaching the Practice Quality Improvement Project in Interventional Radiology

An important component of maintenance of certification and quality improvement in radiology is the practice quality improvement (PQI) project. In this article, the authors describe several methodologies for initiating and completing PQI projects. Furthermore, the authors illustrate several tools that are vital in compiling, analyzing, and presenting data in an easily understandable and reproducible manner. Last, they describe two PQI projects performed in an interventional radiology division that have successfully improved the quality of care for patients. Using the DMAIC (define, measure, analyze, improve, control) quality improvement framework, interventional radiology throughput has been increased, to lessen mediport wait times from 43 to 8 days, and mediport infection rates have decreased from more than 2% to less than 0.4%.