Quality Assurance in Interventional Radiology: Post-procedural Care

  • Madheea Siddiqi
  • Tarek JazmatiEmail author
  • Piotr Kisza
  • Hani Abujudeh
Quality and Safety (H Abujudeh, Section Editor)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Quality and Safety


Purpose of Review

To review best practices to improve the quality of patient service in the field of interventional radiology after performing the procedure.

Recent Findings

The aim of this paper is to highlight aspects of post-procedural care such as effective communication, post-procedural management of the patient, handling of obtained specimens, post-procedural follow-up, tracking outcomes, and education to assist the interventionalist in providing comprehensive quality post-procedural care.


Post-procedural communication, follow-up, and outcome tracking are essential elements in the quality assurance of an Interventional Radiology service.


Quality assurance Patient-centered care Interventional Radiology clinic Patient education Follow-up 



The authors would like to thank Dr. Ali N. Harb for reviewing their manuscript.

Compliance with Ethical Guidelines

Conflict of interest

Madheea Siddiqi, Tarek Jazmati, and Piotr Kisza each declare no potential conflicts of interest. Hani Abujudeh is a section editor for Current Radiology Reports.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.


Recently published papers of particular interest have been highlighted as: •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Taslakian B, Sridhar D. Post-procedural care in interventional radiology: what every interventional radiologist should know-part I: standard post-procedural instructions and follow-up care. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2017;40(4):481–95. Scholar
  2. 2.
    Katzen BT, Kaplan JO, Dake MD. Developing an interventional radiology practice in a community hospital: the interventional radiologist as an equal partner in patient care. Radiology. 1989;170(3 Pt 2):955–8. Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kinnison ML, et al. Inpatient admissions for interventional radiology: philosophy of patient management. Radiology. 1985;154(2):349–51. Scholar
  4. 4.
    Abujudeh H, et al. Key principles in quality and safety in radiology. Am J Roentgenol. 2017;208(3):101–9. Scholar
  5. 5.
    Abujudeh HH, Danielson A, Bruno MA. A patient-centered radiology quality process map: opportunities and solutions. Am J Roentgenol. 2016;207(5):940–6. Scholar
  6. 6.
    Benjamin HB, et al. Key performance indicators in radiology: you can’t manage what you can’t measure. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 2016;45(2):115–21. Scholar
  7. 7.
    Liao GJ, et al. Time to talk: can radiologists improve follow-up of abdominal imaging findings indeterminate for malignancy by initiating verbal communication? J Am Coll Radiol. 2018. Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bhatti ZS, et al. Communicating radiology test results: are our phone calls excessive, just right, or not enough? Acad Radiol. 2018;25(3):365–71. Epub 2017 Nov 23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hanley O, et al. Radiologists’ recommendations for additional imaging on inpatient CT studies: do referring physicians follow them? South Med J. 2017;110(12):770–4. Scholar
  10. 10.
    American College of Radiology, et al. Practice parameter for interventional clinical practice and management. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2015;26(8):1197–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Omary RA, et al. Quality improvement guidelines for the reporting and archiving of interventional radiology procedures. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2003;14(9 Pt 2):S293–5. Scholar
  12. 12.
    Commission, T.J., Record of care, treatment, and services: operative and high risk procedure reports—timeframe of dictation or written. 2018.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Foundation, S.o.I.R.a.S., Interventional radiology standardized reporting user guide. 2017.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Taslakian B, Al-Kutoubi A, Hoballah JJ. Procedural dictations in image-guided intervention: non-vascular, vascular and neuro interventions. Berlin: Springer; 2016. Scholar
  15. 15.
    •• Gunn A, Duncan J. Interventional radiology. In: Abujudeh HH, Bruno MA, editors. Radiology noninterpretive skills: the requisites eBook. Amsterdam: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2017. Resourceful book chapter summarizing pre-, intra- and post-procedural strategies to improve quality of care.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lexa FJ. 300,000,000 customers: patient perspectives on service and quality. J Am Coll Radiol. 2006;3(5):346–50. Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rosenkrantz AB, Pysarenko K. The service encounter in radiology: acing the “moments of truth” to achieve patient-centered care. Acad Radiol. 2015;22(2):259–64. Scholar
  18. 18.
    Oh S, Cook TS, Kahn CE Jr. PORTER: a prototype system for patient-oriented radiology reporting. J Digit Imaging. 2016;29:450–4. Scholar
  19. 19.
    Johnson AJ, Frankel RM, Williams LS, Glover S, Easterling D. Patient access to radiology reports: what do physicians think? J Am Coll Radiol. 2010;7:281–9. Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bruno MA, Petscavage-Thomas JM, Mohr MJ, Bell SK, Brown SD. The ‘open letter’: radiologists’ reports in the era of patient web portals. J Am Coll Radiol. 2014;11:863–7. Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  • Madheea Siddiqi
    • 1
  • Tarek Jazmati
    • 1
    Email author
  • Piotr Kisza
    • 1
  • Hani Abujudeh
    • 1
  1. 1.Rutgers New Jersey School of MedicineNewarkUSA

Personalised recommendations