Search

As radiology continues to evolve and grow, radiologists must be concerned with preparing radiology for the future. Decisions in capital investments, mergers, outpatient diagnostic clinics, and payment and liability issues will require practicing radiologists to develop and follow up managerial, interpersonal, and learning skills that were not as necessary in the past. To become adept in the new radiology environment and be able to manage change and deal with difficult decisions, radiologists need to acquire a background in strategy.

Providing radiology services is a complex and technically demanding enterprise in which the application of operations management (OM) tools can play a substantial role in process management and improvement. This paper considers the benefits of an OM process in a radiology setting. Available techniques and concepts of OM are addressed, along with gains and benefits that can be derived from these processes. A reference framework for the radiology processes is described, distinguishing two phases in the initial assessment of a unit: the diagnostic phase and the redesign phase.

The objective of this paper is to provide an overview of how to develop and implement a performance measurement system in radiology departments. Although an extensive literature review (PubMed, MEDLINE, etc) was carried out to search for relevant published scientific papers, the number of publications regarding performance indicators in radiology departments was very limited. The present paper reflects the current approach to performance measurement in health care services based on the available literature, which may be applied to the field of radiology. Performance indicators are tools that evaluate an organizations progress toward its goals [1]. In radiology, in addition to finance, other aspects that affect the functioning of the organization, such as clinical productivity and patient satisfaction, also need to be assessed. The main categories of indicators adopted in radiology departments include: (1) productivity, (2) finance, (3) patient safety, (4) access, and (5) customer satisfaction. Once specific indicators in each of these categories are selected, the data collection methods should be incorporated into the routine departmental processes. Information obtained should be made available to all stakeholders via various media. In conclusion, performance indicators establish a common denominator in order to make comaparisons of the organization's performance over time. To improve the quality of services, these indicators should be benchmarked, i.e., the processes should be compared to the best in the field.

To determine how productivity- and finance-related indicators are used by radiology departments to evaluate departmental performance.The study met the criteria to be exempt from institutional review board approval. All subjects were informed of the purpose of the study and that their questionnaire responses would be kept confidential. For the study, a survey was sent to 132 members of the Society of Chairmen of Academic Radiology Departments (SCARD) nationwide. The survey was designed to (a) assess organizational information about hospital and radiology departments, (b) determine the types and mean numbers of productivity and financial indicators used by radiology departments, (c) determine how these indicators are used to influence departmental productivity, and (d) assess the reference-standard goals with which each indicator value was compared. A total of 77 variables were studied. Summary statistics, Spearman rank correlation coefficient, and chi2 analyses were performed.The response rate was 42% (55 of 132 surveyed SCARD members). The mean number of productivity indicators used by radiology departments was 4.55 +/- 2.56 (standard deviation), while the mean number of financial indicators used was 2.89 +/- 1.99. Twenty-two (40%) of the 55 responding departments used productivity indicators to monitor and provide feedback to radiologists, hospital leaders, and technical staff members for improved productivity, but only 11 (20%) departments used these indicators to compare personnel performances against specific productivity standards. The most frequent goal (of seven [13%] responding departments) of using the indicators was to increase the examination volume from the previous year by 5%-10%.Academic radiology departments across the United States do not use a standardized set of productivity and financial indicators to measure departmental performance. Examination volume is the most frequently used productivity indicator, whereas general expenses are commonly used as indicators of financial status.