Radiology Overview: Defining Radiology and Stakeholders in the Radiology Enterprise

  • Garshasb P. SorooshEmail author
  • William W. Mayo-Smith
  • Daniel J. Mollura


The complexity of the radiology organization is commonly underappreciated in the planning and implementation of medical imaging services in developing countries. It is vital for radiology service implementation that the full dynamics of the radiology enterprise be analyzed with integration of all stakeholders. In this way, technical components, such as medical hardware and software, can be optimized for the full range of specialized personnel who must operate in synchrony to deliver safe and effective imaging. Understanding these stakeholders is also vital for international partnership-building and health policy formulation, in which key areas of expertise and experience are bridged via communication to help limited-resource areas. Therefore, this chapter sets out to delineate the actors and processes constituting a radiology enterprise so that these factors can be best analyzed and planned for new services in poor and resource-limited regions of the world.


Stakeholder Radiology enterprise Administrator Information technology Physicist Safety Quality Service delivery Personnel Radiology 


  1. 1.
    Everton KL, Mazal J, Mollura DJ. White paper report of the 2011 RAD-AID conference on international radiology for developing countries: integrating multidisciplinary strategies for imaging services in the developing world. J Am Coll Radiol. 2012;9(7):488–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kesselman A, Soroosh G, Mollura DJ. 2015 RAD-AID conference on international radiology for developing countries: the evolving global radiology landscape. J Am Coll Radiol. 2016;13(9):1139–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mollura DJ, Soroosh G, Culp MP. 2016 RAD-AID conference on international radiology for developing countries: gaps, growth, and United Nations sustainable development goals. J Am Coll Radiol. 2017;14(6):841–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Welling RD, Azene EM, Kalia V, Pongpirul K, Starikovsky A, Sydnor R, et al. White paper report of the 2010 RAD-AID conference on international radiology for developing countries: identifying sustainable strategies for imaging services in the developing world. J Am Coll Radiol. 2011;8(8):556–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tamm EP, Szklaruk J, Puthooran L, Stone D, Stevens BL, Modaro C. Quality initiatives: planning, setting up, and carrying out radiology process improvement projects. Radiographics. 2012;32(5):1529–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Boland GW. Enhancing CT productivity: strategies for increasing capacity. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;191(1):3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boland GW. From herding cats toward best practices: standardizing the radiologic work process. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193(6):1593–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mayo-Smith WW. Administration of a CT division. Radiology. 2002;222(2):319–26. Scholar
  9. 9.
    Forsetlund L, Bjørndal A, Rashidian A, Jamtvedt G, O’Brien MA, Wolf FM, et al. Continuing education meetings and workshops: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;(2):CD003030. [].
  10. 10.
    Cohen MD, Gunderman RB, Frank MS, Williamson KB. Challenges facing radiology educators. J Am Coll Radiol. 2005;2(8):681–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sistrom CL, Langlotz CP. A framework for improving radiology reporting. J Am Coll Radiol. 2005;2(2):159–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Garshasb P. Soroosh
    • 1
    Email author
  • William W. Mayo-Smith
    • 2
    • 3
  • Daniel J. Mollura
    • 4
  1. 1.Johns Hopkins University, School of MedicineBaltimoreUSA
  2. 2.Brigham and Women’s HospitalBostonUSA
  3. 3.Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA
  4. 4.RAD-AID InternationalChevy ChaseUSA

Personalised recommendations