Search

The ideal radiology report reduces diagnostic uncertainty, while avoiding ambiguity whenever possible. The purpose of this study was to characterize the use of uncertainty terms in radiology reports at a single institution and compare the use of these terms across imaging modalities, anatomic sections, patient characteristics, and radiologist characteristics. We hypothesized that there would be variability among radiologists and between subspecialities within radiology regarding the use of uncertainty terms and that the length of the impression of a report would be a predictor of use of uncertainty terms. Finally, we hypothesized that use of uncertainty terms would often be interpreted by human readers as “hedging.” To test these hypotheses, we applied a natural language processing (NLP) algorithm to assess and count the number of uncertainty terms within radiology reports. An algorithm was created to detect usage of a published set of uncertainty terms. All 642,569 radiology report impressions from 171 reporting radiologists were collected from 2011 through 2015. For validation, two radiologists without knowledge of the software algorithm reviewed report impressions and were asked to determine whether the report was “uncertain” or “hedging.” The relationship between the presence of 1 or more uncertainty terms and the human readers’ assessment was compared. There were significant differences in the proportion of reports containing uncertainty terms across patient admission status and across anatomic imaging subsections. Reports with uncertainty were significantly longer than those without, although report length was not significantly different between subspecialities or modalities. There were no significant differences in rates of uncertainty when comparing the experience of the attending radiologist. When compared with reader 1 as a gold standard, accuracy was 0.91, sensitivity was 0.92, specificity was 0.9, and precision was 0.88, with an F1-score of 0.9. When compared with reader 2, accuracy was 0.84, sensitivity was 0.88, specificity was 0.82, and precision was 0.68, with an F1-score of 0.77. Substantial variability exists among radiologists and subspecialities regarding the use of uncertainty terms, and this variability cannot be explained by years of radiologist experience or differences in proportions of specific modalities. Furthermore, detection of uncertainty terms demonstrates good test characteristics for predicting human readers’ assessment of uncertainty.

The objective is to determine patients’ utilization rate of radiology image viewing through an online patient portal and to understand its impact on radiologists. IRB approval was waived. In this two-part, multi-institutional study, patients’ image viewing rate was retrospectively assessed, and radiologists were anonymously surveyed for the impact of patient imaging access on their workflow. Patient access to web-based image viewing via electronic patient portals was enabled at 3 institutions (all had open radiology reports) within the past 5 years. The number of exams viewed online was compared against the total number of viewable imaging studies. An anonymized survey was distributed to radiologists at the 3 institutions, and responses were collected over 2 months. Patients viewed 14.2% of available exams – monthly open rate varied from 7.3 to 41.0%. A total of 254 radiologists responded to the survey (response rate 32.8%); 204 were aware that patients could view images. The majority (155/204; 76.0%) felt no impact on their role as radiologists; 11.8% felt negative and 9.3% positive. The majority (63.8%) were never approached by patients. Of the 86 who were contacted, 46.5% were contacted once or twice, 46.5% 3–4 times a year, and 4.7% 3–4 times a month. Free text comments included support for healthcare transparency (71), concern for patient confusion and anxiety (45), and need for attention to radiology reports and image annotations (15). A small proportion of patients viewed their radiology images. Overall, patients’ image viewing had minimal impact on radiologists. Radiologists were seldom contacted by patients. While many radiologists feel supportive, some are concerned about causing patient confusion and suggest minor workflow modifications. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10278-021-00565-9.

Open-source development can provide a platform for innovation by seeking feedback from community members as well as providing tools and infrastructure to test new standards. Vendors of proprietary systems may delay adoption of new standards until there are sufficient incentives such as legal mandates or financial incentives to encourage/mandate adoption. Moreover, open-source systems in healthcare have been widely adopted in low- and middle-income countries and can be used to bridge gaps that exist in global health radiology. Since 2011, the authors, along with a community of open-source contributors, have worked on developing an open-source radiology information system (RIS) across two communities-OpenMRS and LibreHealth. The main purpose of the RIS is to implement core radiology workflows, on which others can build and test new radiology standards. This work has resulted in three major releases of the system, with current architectural changes driven by changing technology, development of new standards in health and imaging informatics, and changing user needs. At their core, both these communities are focused on building general-purpose EHR systems, but based on user contributions from the fringes, we have been able to create an innovative system that has been used by hospitals and clinics in four different countries. We provide an overview of the history of the LibreHealth RIS, the architecture of the system, overview of standards integration, describe challenges of developing an open-source product, and future directions. Our goal is to attract more participation and involvement to further develop the LibreHealth RIS into an Enterprise Imaging System that can be used in other clinical imaging including pathology and dermatology.

Health Level 7’s (HL7’s) new standard, FHIR (Fast Health Interoperability Resources), is setting healthcare information technology and medical imaging specifically ablaze with excitement. This paper aims to describe the protocol’s advantages in some detail and explore an easy path for those unfamiliar with FHIR to begin learning the standard using free, open-source tools, namely the HL7 application programming interface (HAPI) FHIR server and the SIIM Hackathon Dataset.

Numerous initiatives are in place to support value based care in radiology including decision support using appropriateness criteria, quality metrics like radiation dose monitoring, and efforts to improve the quality of the radiology report for consumption by referring providers. These initiatives are largely data driven. Organizations can choose to purchase proprietary registry systems, pay for software as a service solution, or deploy/build their own registry systems. Traditionally, registries are created for a single purpose like radiation dosage or specific disease tracking like diabetes registry. This results in a fragmented view of the patient, and increases overhead to maintain such single purpose registry system by requiring an alternative data entry workflow and additional infrastructure to host and maintain multiple registries for different clinical needs. This complexity is magnified in the health care enterprise whereby radiology systems usually are run parallel to other clinical systems due to the different clinical workflow for radiologists. In the new era of value based care where data needs are increasing with demand for a shorter turnaround time to provide data that can be used for information and decision making, there is a critical gap to develop registries that are more adapt to the radiology workflow with minimal overhead on resources for maintenance and setup. We share our experience of developing and implementing an open source registry system for quality improvement and research in our academic institution that is driven by our radiology workflow.

The purpose of this report is to describe our experience with the implementation of a practice quality improvement (PQI) project in thoracic imaging as part of the American Board of Radiology Maintenance of Certification process. The goal of this PQI project was to reduce the effective radiation dose of routine chest CT imaging in a busy clinical practice by employing the iDose(4) (Philips Healthcare) iterative reconstruction technique. The dose reduction strategy was implemented in a stepwise process on a single 64-slice CT scanner with a volume of 1141 chest CT scans during the year. In the first annual quarter, a baseline effective dose was established using the standard filtered back projection (FBP) algorithm protocol and standard parameters such as kVp and mAs. The iDose(4) technique was then applied in the second and third annual quarters while keeping all other parameters unchanged. In the fourth quarter, a reduction in kVp was also implemented. Throughout the process, the images were continually evaluated to assure that the image quality was comparable to the standard protocol from multiple other scanners. Utilizing a stepwise approach, the effective radiation dose was reduced by 23.62 and 43.63% in quarters two and four, respectively, compared to our initial standard protocol with no perceived difference in diagnostic quality. This practice quality improvement project demonstrated a significant reduction in the effective radiation dose of thoracic CT scans in a busy clinical practice.

As part of its ongoing effort to improve healthcare quality, the Center of Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has transitioned from monetary rewards to reimbursement penalties for noncompliance or nonparticipation with its quality measurement initiatives. More specifically, eligible providers who bill for CMS patient care, such as radiologists, will face a 2 % negative payment adjustment, if they fail to report adequate participation and compliance with sufficient CMS quality measures in 2015. Although several methods exist to report participation and compliance, each method requires the gathering of relevant studies and assessing the reports for compliance. To aid in this data gathering and to prevent reduced reimbursements, radiology groups should consider implementing automated processes to monitor compliance with these quality measure standards. This article describes one method of creating an automated report scanner, utilizing an open source interface engine called Mirth Connect, that may facilitate the data gathering and monitoring related to reporting compliance with CMS standard #195 Stenosis measurement in Ultrasound Carotid Imaging Reports. The process described in this article is currently utilized by a large multi-institutional radiology group to assess for report compliance and offers the user near real time surveillance of compliance with the quality measure.

Over the past 20 years, imaging informatics has been driven by the widespread adoption of radiology information and picture archiving and communication and speech recognition systems. These three clinical information systems are commonplace and are intuitive to most radiologists as they replicate familiar paper and film workflow. So what is next? There is a surge of innovation in imaging informatics around advanced workflow, search, electronic medical record aggregation, dashboarding, and analytics tools for quality measures (Nance et al., AJR Am J Roentgenol 200:1064–1070, 2013). The challenge lies in not having to rebuild the technological wheel for each of these new applications but instead attempt to share common components through open standards and modern development techniques. The next generation of applications will be built with moving parts that work together to satisfy advanced use cases without replicating databases and without requiring fragile, intense synchronization from clinical systems. The purpose of this paper is to identify building blocks that can position a practice to be able to quickly innovate when addressing clinical, educational, and research-related problems. This paper is the result of identifying common components in the construction of over two dozen clinical informatics projects developed at the University of Maryland Radiology Informatics Research Laboratory. The systems outlined are intended as a mere foundation rather than an exhaustive list of possible extensions.

Training as a radiology resident is a complex task. Residents frequently encounter multiple hospital systems, each with unique workflow patterns and heterogenous information systems. We identified an opportunity to ease some of the resulting anxiety and frustration by centralizing high-quality resources using a wiki. In this manuscript, we describe our choice of wiki software, give basic information about hardware requirements, detail steps for configuration, outline information included on the wiki, and present the results of a resident acceptance survey.