Abdomen, Computer applications, eHealth, MR, MR-Enterography, MR-Diffusion/Perfusion, Audit and standards, Computer Applications-Teleradiology, Education, Education and training, Quality assurance, Workforce
H. Agrell1, B. Norén2, C. Silvestrin3, C. Backman4, M. Håkansson5, M. Torkzad6; 1Stockholm/SE, 2Linköping/SE, 3Barcelona/ES, 4KUNGÄLV/SE, 5Borås/SE, 6Sutton/UK
Methods and materials
Six radiologists without sub-specialization in radiology were connected to a central teleradiology unit and reported on cases in a prospective study for nineteen months.
The exams were redistributed to these six with each reporting as many as feasible.
They had the possibility of dicussing their cases with subspecialists before or after reporting.
Their reports were sent to subspecialists and feedback was provided via the system which ranked the discrepancy level.
The radiologists were also tutored midway at a week-long fellowship course. All their reports were read by experienced subspecialists and discrepancy levels were allocated.
The reporting rate per hour was recorded continuously via the that available RIS,
reported as rad units (RU) per hour.
The first two months were not included in analysis as this period was considered warm-up phase.
An independent experienced reviewer blinded to the concept of the study was recruited to evaluate reports.
The task of external auditor was to confirm that the final reports were consistent with good clinical practice and keeping good level of accuracy.
We did not want to improve speed with sacrifice of due deligence.