Keywords:
Workforce, Efficacy studies, Comparative studies, Plain radiographic studies, Computer applications
Authors:
A. Chandrashekar1, A. Devaraj1, L. Dixon1, S. Copley1, C. A. Ridge2, S. P. G. Padley1; 1London/UK, 2Dublin/IE
Methods and Materials
A total of five radiologists cumulatively reported 200 CXRs in batches of five.
Two different PACS/RIS systems (AGFA PACS/RIS and Carestream PACS/Soliton RIS) were used at two different institutions.
Three radiologists reported solely on AGFA PACS/RIS,
one radiologist reported solely on Carestream PACS/Soliton RIS,
and one radiologist reported on both systems.
Each radiologist was timed using an electronic stopwatch with split-timer functionality,
so as to evaluate 'wasted' reporting time and 'useful' reporting time Fig. 1.
To minimise bias,
each radiologist was timed by the same individual,
and a consistent criterion was implemented,
to outline what time would be regarded as useful or wasted time.
Directly looking at a patient’s CXR and dictating the report were deemed as 'useful' time.
All other time expended was 'wasted' time.
This included time expended on:
- Clicking on the CXR image
- Waiting for the system to process and open the patient’s CXR
- Retrieving the patient's clinical information details
- Retrieving the patient’s previous relevant radiographs
- Resolving error messages
- Correcting dictation spelling errors due to inaccurate voice recognition
Once five CXRs had been reported,
the timer was stopped immediately and the total,
useful and wasted time values were recorded.
The radiologist was then provided with a break of five minutes,
after which the reporting of another batch of five CXRs commenced.
No interruptions were allowed during reporting.
To account for the inevitable variation in total speed of reporting amongst the radiologists,
given varying levels of CXR complexity and reporting expertise,
the relative proportion of ‘useful’ and ‘wasted’ time in comparison to total time was measured,
rather than the raw data values.