AJR Women's Imaging Online
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Crabbe, J. P.
Right arrow Articles by Nye, W. W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Crabbe, J. P.
Right arrow Articles by Nye, W. W.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol 163, 1503-1507, Copyright © 1994 by American Roentgen Ray Society

ARTICLES

Improving report turnaround time: an integrated method using data from a radiology information system

JP Crabbe, CL Frank and WW Nye
Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor 48109.

OBJECTIVE. In the face of a changing health care system and increased competition, radiology departments need to become more efficient. One measurement of efficiency is promptness in producing a final report. Many large radiology centers have radiology information systems (RIS) that track work flow, collecting tremendous amounts of data. Most, however, lack an appropriate analytic mechanism. We have developed an integrated system that allows continual monitoring of radiology work flow and thus of opportunities to apply interventions. This system can form an important component of the quality management process in the radiology department. MATERIALS AND METHODS. In developing the system, we identified seven key steps in the work-flow process. When left to chance, these steps occur out of sequence and large delays occur. A scheme was devised to improve the sequencing of the work flow by using the data collected from the RIS, sorted by radiology division and patient type. Biweekly, the appropriate data file is transferred to each division for analysis, via the department's computer network. A one-step process follows, using desktop Macintosh computers and a custom program written in Microsoft Excel. Extracted data are quickly converted into a tailored division summary, and a report is automatically generated. RESULTS. The result summary format is uniform throughout the department, allowing ease of review at divisional and departmental meetings. Problems can be immediately localized to a specific step in the work-flow process. Automation of much of the system allows continual, near-real-time review of work flow. Using this approach, we have seen a sustained reduction of average report turnaround time. CONCLUSION. This system allows continual monitoring of work flow. It is largely automated and lends itself well to inclusion in the quality management program of any radiology department.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 RadiologyHome page
S. Ondategui-Parra, J. G. Bhagwat, K. H. Zou, A. Gogate, L. A. Intriere, P. Kelly, S. E. Seltzer, and P. R. Ros
Practice Management Performance Indicators in Academic Radiology Departments
Radiology, December 1, 2004; 233(3): 716 - 722.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1994 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.