Journal of Medical Systems

, 43:30 | Cite as

Improving Communication of Actionable Findings in Radiology Imaging Studies and Procedures Using an EMR-Independent System

  • Steven J. BacceiEmail author
  • Cole DiRoberto
  • Janet Greene
  • Max P. Rosen
Systems-Level Quality Improvement
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Systems-Level Quality Improvement


The primary purpose of this study is to determine if the implementation of an actionable findings communication system (PeerVue) with explicitly defined criteria for the classification of critical results, leads to an increase in the number of actionable findings reported by radiologists. Secondary goals are to 1) analyze the adoption rate of PeerVue and 2) assess the accuracy of the classification of actionable findings within this system. Over a two-year period, 890,204 radiology reports were analyzed retrospectively in order to identify the number of actionable findings communicated before (Year 1) and after the implementation of PeerVue (Year 2) at a tertiary care academic medical center. A sub-sample of 145 actionable findings over a two-month period in Year 2 was further analyzed to assess the degree of concordance with our reporting policy. Before PeerVue, 4623/423,070 (1.09%) of radiology reports contained an actionable finding. After its implementation, this number increased to 6825/467,134 (1.46%) (p < 0.0001). PeerVue was used in 3886/6825 (56.9%) cases with actionable findings. The remaining 2939/6825 (43.1%) were reported using the legacy tagging system. From the sub-sample taken from PeerVue, 104/145 (71.7%) were consistent with the updated reporting policy. A software program (PeerVue) utilized for the communication of actionable findings contributed to a 34% (p < 0.0001) increase in the reporting rate of actionable findings. A sub-analysis within the new system indicated a 56.9% adoption rate and a 71.7% accuracy rate in reporting of actionable findings.


Communication Actionable findings Critical results Improve Radiology 



  1. 1.
    American College of Radiology, ACR practice guideline for communication of diagnostic imaging findings. Revised 2014 (Res. 11). Reston: American College of Radiology, 2014.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Poon, E. G., Gandhi, T. K., Sequist, T. D., Murff, H. J., Karson, A. S., and Bates, D. W., “I wish I had seen this test result earlier!”: Dissatisfaction with test result management systems in primary care. Arch. Intern. Med. 164:2223–2228, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berlin, L., Communicating findings of radiologic examinations: Whither goest the radiologist's duty? AJR 178:809–815, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gandhi, T. K., Fumbled handoffs: One dropped ball after another. Ann. Intern. Med. 142:352–358, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Towbin, A. J., Hall, S., Moskovitz, J., Johnson, N. D., and Donnelly, L. F., Creating a comprehensive customer service program to help convey critical and acute results of radiology studies. AJR 196:W48–W51, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lacson, R., Prevedello, L. M., Andriole, K. P. et al., Four-year impact of an alert notification system on closed-loop communication of critical test result. AJR 203:933–938, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lacson, R., O’Connor, S. D., Andriole, K. P. et al., Automated critical test result notification system: Architecture, design, and assessment of provider satisfaction. AJR 203:W491–W496, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Prevedello, L., and Khorasani, R., Alert Notification of Critical Radiology Results (ANCR): using IT tools to enhance monitoring and management of actionable findings in radiology. Partners Radiology Research and Education Retreat. 2010.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Larson, P. A., Berland, L. L., Griffith, B., Kahn, Jr., C. E., and Liebscher, L. A., Actionable findings and the role of IT support: Report of the ACR actionable reporting work group. J. Am. Coll. Radiol. 11(6):552–558, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Larson, D. B., Froehle, C. M., Johnson, N. D., and Towbin, A. J., Communication in diagnostic radiology meeting the challenges of complexity. AJR 203:957–964, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fitzgerald, R., Error in radiology. Clin. Radiol. 56:938–946, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Whang, J. S., Baker, S. R., Patel, R., Luk, L., and Castro, III, A., The causes of medical malpractice suits against radiologists in the United States. Radiology 266:548–554, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Brenner, R. J., Lucey, L., Smith, J. J., and Saunders, R., Radiology and medical malpractice claims: A report on the practice claims survey of the Physician Insurers Association of America and the American College of Radiology. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 171:19–22, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hanks, J.D. Jr., Radiology liability update. Presented at: Georgia & South Carolina Radiological Societies Meeting; Hilton Head Island, SC; June 19, 2011.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Thomson, N. B. I. I. I., and Patel, M., Radiology liability update: Review of claims, trends, high-risk conditions and practices, and tort reform alternatives. J. Am. Coll. Radiol. 9:729–733, 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Parl, F. F., O’Leary, M. F., Kaiser, A. B., Paulett, J. M., Statnikova, K., and Shultz, E. K., Implementation of a closed loop reporting system for critical values and clinical communication in compliance with goals of the joint commission. Clin. Chem. 56:417–423, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steven J. Baccei
    • 1
    Email author
  • Cole DiRoberto
    • 1
  • Janet Greene
    • 1
  • Max P. Rosen
    • 1
  1. 1.UMass Memorial Medical CenterWorcesterUSA

Personalised recommendations