Advertisement

European Radiology

, Volume 29, Issue 4, pp 1649–1654 | Cite as

Clinicians’ perceptions of the quality of outsourced radiology and actions taken around perceived imaging errors in practice

  • Yitka GrahamEmail author
  • Catherine Hayes
  • Pallavi Mehrotra
  • Jonathan Spratt
  • Kathryn Siddle
  • Julie Cox
Radiological Education

Abstract

Objectives

Outsourcing of radiological reporting services has fundamentally altered communication between radiologists and clinicians in clinical decision making, which relies heavily on diagnostic imaging. The aim of this study was to understand clinicians’ perspectives and experiences of interpretation of outsourced reports in clinical practice, if the author of imaging reports matters to clinicians, and actions taken to deal with perceived errors.

Methods

A printed survey was distributed to a purposive sample of 50 of the 250 senior medical and surgical staff of a large National Health Service hospital in the UK who regularly engaged with the Radiology Department between May and October 2017, representing 20% of this hospital workforce. The survey consisted of ten questions examining clinicians’ opinions on radiology reporting, with comment options to encourage respondents to give further detail. Participants were requested to return the survey to the study investigators.

Results

The survey elicited a 100% response rate (n = 50). A constant comparative framework was used to guide analysis, revealing themes relevant to the ongoing inter-professional relationship between clinicians and radiologists. The disparity between in-house and externally sourced radiology reports and underlying issues of trust surrounding outsourced reports were the most significant themes identified.

Conclusions

This study found outsourcing of radiology reporting needs multi-disciplinary team availability regarding the interpretation and discussions around capacity for effective communication. It raises important issues around often under-acknowledged additional workloads imposed on in-house radiologists. There are financial and pragmatic clinical aspects in pathways of radiology practice which require further research and examination.

Key Points

Utilisation of outsourcing is increasing in practice in response to imaging demands.

Outsourcing increases departmental primary reporting capacity but may increase the workload of the local radiologist.

The development of strategies for outsourcing examinations may lessen demands on the in-house workforce.

Keywords

Outsourcing Workload Clinical decision making 

Notes

Funding

The authors state that this work has not received any funding.

Compliance with ethical standards

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Dr. Julie Cox.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Statistics and biometry

No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was not required for this study because the participants were hospital staff, and written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.

Methodology

• retrospective

References

  1. 1.
    Royal College of Radiologists (2017) Clinical radiology UK workforce census 2016 report. Royal College of Radiologists, London Contract No.: BFCR (17)6Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Royal College of Radiologists (2014) Cancer multidisciplinary team meetings - standards for clinical radiologists. Royal College of Radiolgists, London Contract No.: BFCR (14)15Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Balasubramaniam R, Subesinghe M, Smith JT (2015) The proliferation of multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs): how can radiology departments continue to support them all? Eur Radiol 25(12):3679–3684CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kane B, Luz S, O’Briain DS, McDermott R (2007) Multidisciplinary team meetings and their impact on workflow in radiology and pathology departments. BMC Med 5:15.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-5-15 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Davis A (2008) Outsourced radiology: will doctors be deskilled? BMJ 2008:337.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.a785 Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brady AP (2017) Error and discrepancy in radiology: inevitable or avoidable? Insight Imaging 8(1):171–182.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13244-016-0534-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sibanda L, Engel-Hills P, Hering E (2017) Radiology demand and capacity: a stochastic analysis based on care pathways. Cogent Business & Management 4(1):1334994.  https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2017.1334994 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Corbin C, Strauss A (2008) Basics of qualitative research, 3rd edn. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bryman A (2008) Social research methods, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Creswell J (2009) Research design: qualitative, quantitative and mixed-methods approaches, 3rd edn. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Charmaz K (2014) Constructing grounded theory. 2nd edn. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Brady A, Laoide RÓ, McCarthy P, McDermott R (2012) Discrepancy and error in radiology: concepts, causes and consequences. Ulster Med J 81(1):3–9PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Blumberg S, Mahajan PV, O’Connell KJ et al (2017) Radiologic safety events within a pediatric emergency medicine network. Pediatr Emerg Care 33(2):92–96Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Royal College of Radiologists (2010) Teleradiology and outsourcing census. Royal College of Radiologists, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chasin BS, Elliott SP, Klotz SA (2007) Medical errors arising from outsourcing laboratory and radiology services. Am J Med 120(9):819.e9–819.11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gutzeit A, Heiland R, Sudarski S et al (2018) Direct communication between radiologists and patients following imaging examinations. Should radiologists rethink their patient care? Eur Radiol.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5503-2

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologyCity Hospitals Sunderland NHS Foundation TrustSunderlandUK
  2. 2.Faculty of Health Sciences and WellbeingUniversity of Sunderland, Sciences ComplexSunderlandUK

Personalised recommendations