Improvement of radiology reporting in a clinical cancer network: impact of an optimised multidisciplinary workflow
Purpose To assess the effectiveness of implementing a quality improvement project in a clinical cancer network directed at the response assessment of oncology patients according to RECIST-criteria. Methods Requests and reports of computed tomography (CT) studies from before (n = 103) and after (n =...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | European radiology 2018-10, Vol.28 (10), p.4274-4280 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 4280 |
---|---|
container_issue | 10 |
container_start_page | 4274 |
container_title | European radiology |
container_volume | 28 |
creator | Olthof, A. W. Borstlap, J. Roeloffzen, W. W. Callenbach, P. M. C. van Ooijen, P. M. A. |
description | Purpose
To assess the effectiveness of implementing a quality improvement project in a clinical cancer network directed at the response assessment of oncology patients according to RECIST-criteria.
Methods
Requests and reports of computed tomography (CT) studies from before (n = 103) and after (n = 112) implementation of interventions were compared. The interventions consisted of: a multidisciplinary working agreement with a clearly described workflow; subspecialisation of radiologists; adaptation of the Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS); structured reporting.
Results
The essential information included in the requests and the reports improved significantly after implementation of the interventions. In the requests, mentioning start date increased from 2% to 49%; date of baseline CT from 7% to 64%; nadir date from 1% to 41%. In the reports, structured layout increased from 14% to 86%; mentioning target lesions from 18% to 80% and non-target lesions from 11% to 80%; measurements stored in PACS increased from 76% to 97%; labelled key images from 38% to 95%; all
p
values < 0.001.
Conclusion
The combination of implementation of an optimised workflow, subspecialisation and structured reporting led to significantly better quality radiology reporting for oncology patients receiving chemotherapy. The applied multifactorial approach can be used within other radiology subspeciality areas as well.
Key points
•
Undeveloped subspecialisation makes adherence to RECIST guidelines difficult in general hospitals.
•
A clinical cancer network provides opportunities to improve healthcare.
•
Optimised workflow, subspecialisation and structured reporting substantially improve request and report quality.
•
Good interdisciplinary communication between oncologists, radiologists and others contributes to quality improvement. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s00330-018-5427-x |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2028957341</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2027996540</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c415t-33c0bb9e91531e49f54dadda3f42307c2e22c148690954ee4bbe7243d27695583</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kc1u1DAUhS0EokPbB-gGWWLDJnD9N47ZoYqfSpW6adeW49yM3CZ2sBPavn09TAEJiZUX_s7xvf4IOWPwgQHojwVACGiAtY2SXDcPL8iGScEbBq18STZgRNtoY-QReVPKLQAYJvVrcsTNVhvO5Ibki2nO6SdOGBeaBppdH9KYdo8045zyEuKOhkgd9WOIwbuRehc9ZhpxuU_57hMN0-z8r6yLNM1LmELBnk7ruIQ-FB_mmnT5ke7xYUz3J-TV4MaCp8_nMbn5-uX6_HtzefXt4vzzZeMlU0sjhIeuM2iYEgylGZTsXd87MUguQHuOnHsm260BoySi7DrUXIqe661RqhXH5P2hty74Y8Wy2DqZx3F0EdNaLAfeGqWFZBV99w96m9Yc63R7qv7gVkmoFDtQPqdSMg52zmGqq1kGdi_EHoTYKsTuhdiHmnn73Lx2E_Z_Er8NVIAfgFKv4g7z36f_3_oE77yXlA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2027996540</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Improvement of radiology reporting in a clinical cancer network: impact of an optimised multidisciplinary workflow</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Springer Online Journals Complete</source><creator>Olthof, A. W. ; Borstlap, J. ; Roeloffzen, W. W. ; Callenbach, P. M. C. ; van Ooijen, P. M. A.</creator><creatorcontrib>Olthof, A. W. ; Borstlap, J. ; Roeloffzen, W. W. ; Callenbach, P. M. C. ; van Ooijen, P. M. A.</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose
To assess the effectiveness of implementing a quality improvement project in a clinical cancer network directed at the response assessment of oncology patients according to RECIST-criteria.
Methods
Requests and reports of computed tomography (CT) studies from before (n = 103) and after (n = 112) implementation of interventions were compared. The interventions consisted of: a multidisciplinary working agreement with a clearly described workflow; subspecialisation of radiologists; adaptation of the Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS); structured reporting.
Results
The essential information included in the requests and the reports improved significantly after implementation of the interventions. In the requests, mentioning start date increased from 2% to 49%; date of baseline CT from 7% to 64%; nadir date from 1% to 41%. In the reports, structured layout increased from 14% to 86%; mentioning target lesions from 18% to 80% and non-target lesions from 11% to 80%; measurements stored in PACS increased from 76% to 97%; labelled key images from 38% to 95%; all
p
values < 0.001.
Conclusion
The combination of implementation of an optimised workflow, subspecialisation and structured reporting led to significantly better quality radiology reporting for oncology patients receiving chemotherapy. The applied multifactorial approach can be used within other radiology subspeciality areas as well.
Key points
•
Undeveloped subspecialisation makes adherence to RECIST guidelines difficult in general hospitals.
•
A clinical cancer network provides opportunities to improve healthcare.
•
Optimised workflow, subspecialisation and structured reporting substantially improve request and report quality.
•
Good interdisciplinary communication between oncologists, radiologists and others contributes to quality improvement.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0938-7994</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1432-1084</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00330-018-5427-x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 29679214</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg</publisher><subject>Archiving ; Cancer ; Chemotherapy ; Communications systems ; Computed tomography ; Diagnostic Radiology ; Health care ; Humans ; Imaging ; Interdisciplinary Communication ; Internal Medicine ; Interventional Radiology ; Lesions ; Medical imaging ; Medical Oncology - organization & administration ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging ; Neuroradiology ; Oncology ; Patients ; Quality Assurance, Health Care - organization & administration ; Quality control ; Quality Improvement - organization & administration ; Radiology ; Radiology - organization & administration ; Radiology Information Systems ; Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors ; Tomography, X-Ray Computed ; Ultrasound ; Workflow</subject><ispartof>European radiology, 2018-10, Vol.28 (10), p.4274-4280</ispartof><rights>European Society of Radiology 2018</rights><rights>European Radiology is a copyright of Springer, (2018). All Rights Reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c415t-33c0bb9e91531e49f54dadda3f42307c2e22c148690954ee4bbe7243d27695583</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c415t-33c0bb9e91531e49f54dadda3f42307c2e22c148690954ee4bbe7243d27695583</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00330-018-5427-x$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00330-018-5427-x$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,27905,27906,41469,42538,51300</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29679214$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Olthof, A. W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Borstlap, J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Roeloffzen, W. W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Callenbach, P. M. C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van Ooijen, P. M. A.</creatorcontrib><title>Improvement of radiology reporting in a clinical cancer network: impact of an optimised multidisciplinary workflow</title><title>European radiology</title><addtitle>Eur Radiol</addtitle><addtitle>Eur Radiol</addtitle><description>Purpose
To assess the effectiveness of implementing a quality improvement project in a clinical cancer network directed at the response assessment of oncology patients according to RECIST-criteria.
Methods
Requests and reports of computed tomography (CT) studies from before (n = 103) and after (n = 112) implementation of interventions were compared. The interventions consisted of: a multidisciplinary working agreement with a clearly described workflow; subspecialisation of radiologists; adaptation of the Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS); structured reporting.
Results
The essential information included in the requests and the reports improved significantly after implementation of the interventions. In the requests, mentioning start date increased from 2% to 49%; date of baseline CT from 7% to 64%; nadir date from 1% to 41%. In the reports, structured layout increased from 14% to 86%; mentioning target lesions from 18% to 80% and non-target lesions from 11% to 80%; measurements stored in PACS increased from 76% to 97%; labelled key images from 38% to 95%; all
p
values < 0.001.
Conclusion
The combination of implementation of an optimised workflow, subspecialisation and structured reporting led to significantly better quality radiology reporting for oncology patients receiving chemotherapy. The applied multifactorial approach can be used within other radiology subspeciality areas as well.
Key points
•
Undeveloped subspecialisation makes adherence to RECIST guidelines difficult in general hospitals.
•
A clinical cancer network provides opportunities to improve healthcare.
•
Optimised workflow, subspecialisation and structured reporting substantially improve request and report quality.
•
Good interdisciplinary communication between oncologists, radiologists and others contributes to quality improvement.</description><subject>Archiving</subject><subject>Cancer</subject><subject>Chemotherapy</subject><subject>Communications systems</subject><subject>Computed tomography</subject><subject>Diagnostic Radiology</subject><subject>Health care</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Imaging</subject><subject>Interdisciplinary Communication</subject><subject>Internal Medicine</subject><subject>Interventional Radiology</subject><subject>Lesions</subject><subject>Medical imaging</subject><subject>Medical Oncology - organization & administration</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Neuroradiology</subject><subject>Oncology</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Quality Assurance, Health Care - organization & administration</subject><subject>Quality control</subject><subject>Quality Improvement - organization & administration</subject><subject>Radiology</subject><subject>Radiology - organization & administration</subject><subject>Radiology Information Systems</subject><subject>Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors</subject><subject>Tomography, X-Ray Computed</subject><subject>Ultrasound</subject><subject>Workflow</subject><issn>0938-7994</issn><issn>1432-1084</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kc1u1DAUhS0EokPbB-gGWWLDJnD9N47ZoYqfSpW6adeW49yM3CZ2sBPavn09TAEJiZUX_s7xvf4IOWPwgQHojwVACGiAtY2SXDcPL8iGScEbBq18STZgRNtoY-QReVPKLQAYJvVrcsTNVhvO5Ibki2nO6SdOGBeaBppdH9KYdo8045zyEuKOhkgd9WOIwbuRehc9ZhpxuU_57hMN0-z8r6yLNM1LmELBnk7ruIQ-FB_mmnT5ke7xYUz3J-TV4MaCp8_nMbn5-uX6_HtzefXt4vzzZeMlU0sjhIeuM2iYEgylGZTsXd87MUguQHuOnHsm260BoySi7DrUXIqe661RqhXH5P2hty74Y8Wy2DqZx3F0EdNaLAfeGqWFZBV99w96m9Yc63R7qv7gVkmoFDtQPqdSMg52zmGqq1kGdi_EHoTYKsTuhdiHmnn73Lx2E_Z_Er8NVIAfgFKv4g7z36f_3_oE77yXlA</recordid><startdate>20181001</startdate><enddate>20181001</enddate><creator>Olthof, A. W.</creator><creator>Borstlap, J.</creator><creator>Roeloffzen, W. W.</creator><creator>Callenbach, P. M. C.</creator><creator>van Ooijen, P. M. A.</creator><general>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20181001</creationdate><title>Improvement of radiology reporting in a clinical cancer network: impact of an optimised multidisciplinary workflow</title><author>Olthof, A. W. ; Borstlap, J. ; Roeloffzen, W. W. ; Callenbach, P. M. C. ; van Ooijen, P. M. A.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c415t-33c0bb9e91531e49f54dadda3f42307c2e22c148690954ee4bbe7243d27695583</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Archiving</topic><topic>Cancer</topic><topic>Chemotherapy</topic><topic>Communications systems</topic><topic>Computed tomography</topic><topic>Diagnostic Radiology</topic><topic>Health care</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Imaging</topic><topic>Interdisciplinary Communication</topic><topic>Internal Medicine</topic><topic>Interventional Radiology</topic><topic>Lesions</topic><topic>Medical imaging</topic><topic>Medical Oncology - organization & administration</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Neuroradiology</topic><topic>Oncology</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Quality Assurance, Health Care - organization & administration</topic><topic>Quality control</topic><topic>Quality Improvement - organization & administration</topic><topic>Radiology</topic><topic>Radiology - organization & administration</topic><topic>Radiology Information Systems</topic><topic>Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors</topic><topic>Tomography, X-Ray Computed</topic><topic>Ultrasound</topic><topic>Workflow</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Olthof, A. W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Borstlap, J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Roeloffzen, W. W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Callenbach, P. M. C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van Ooijen, P. M. A.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>European radiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Olthof, A. W.</au><au>Borstlap, J.</au><au>Roeloffzen, W. W.</au><au>Callenbach, P. M. C.</au><au>van Ooijen, P. M. A.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Improvement of radiology reporting in a clinical cancer network: impact of an optimised multidisciplinary workflow</atitle><jtitle>European radiology</jtitle><stitle>Eur Radiol</stitle><addtitle>Eur Radiol</addtitle><date>2018-10-01</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>28</volume><issue>10</issue><spage>4274</spage><epage>4280</epage><pages>4274-4280</pages><issn>0938-7994</issn><eissn>1432-1084</eissn><abstract>Purpose
To assess the effectiveness of implementing a quality improvement project in a clinical cancer network directed at the response assessment of oncology patients according to RECIST-criteria.
Methods
Requests and reports of computed tomography (CT) studies from before (n = 103) and after (n = 112) implementation of interventions were compared. The interventions consisted of: a multidisciplinary working agreement with a clearly described workflow; subspecialisation of radiologists; adaptation of the Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS); structured reporting.
Results
The essential information included in the requests and the reports improved significantly after implementation of the interventions. In the requests, mentioning start date increased from 2% to 49%; date of baseline CT from 7% to 64%; nadir date from 1% to 41%. In the reports, structured layout increased from 14% to 86%; mentioning target lesions from 18% to 80% and non-target lesions from 11% to 80%; measurements stored in PACS increased from 76% to 97%; labelled key images from 38% to 95%; all
p
values < 0.001.
Conclusion
The combination of implementation of an optimised workflow, subspecialisation and structured reporting led to significantly better quality radiology reporting for oncology patients receiving chemotherapy. The applied multifactorial approach can be used within other radiology subspeciality areas as well.
Key points
•
Undeveloped subspecialisation makes adherence to RECIST guidelines difficult in general hospitals.
•
A clinical cancer network provides opportunities to improve healthcare.
•
Optimised workflow, subspecialisation and structured reporting substantially improve request and report quality.
•
Good interdisciplinary communication between oncologists, radiologists and others contributes to quality improvement.</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</pub><pmid>29679214</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00330-018-5427-x</doi><tpages>7</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0938-7994 |
ispartof | European radiology, 2018-10, Vol.28 (10), p.4274-4280 |
issn | 0938-7994 1432-1084 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2028957341 |
source | MEDLINE; Springer Online Journals Complete |
subjects | Archiving Cancer Chemotherapy Communications systems Computed tomography Diagnostic Radiology Health care Humans Imaging Interdisciplinary Communication Internal Medicine Interventional Radiology Lesions Medical imaging Medical Oncology - organization & administration Medicine Medicine & Public Health Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging Neuroradiology Oncology Patients Quality Assurance, Health Care - organization & administration Quality control Quality Improvement - organization & administration Radiology Radiology - organization & administration Radiology Information Systems Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors Tomography, X-Ray Computed Ultrasound Workflow |
title | Improvement of radiology reporting in a clinical cancer network: impact of an optimised multidisciplinary workflow |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-18T16%3A07%3A31IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Improvement%20of%20radiology%20reporting%20in%20a%20clinical%20cancer%20network:%20impact%20of%20an%20optimised%20multidisciplinary%20workflow&rft.jtitle=European%20radiology&rft.au=Olthof,%20A.%20W.&rft.date=2018-10-01&rft.volume=28&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=4274&rft.epage=4280&rft.pages=4274-4280&rft.issn=0938-7994&rft.eissn=1432-1084&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00330-018-5427-x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2027996540%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2027996540&rft_id=info:pmid/29679214&rfr_iscdi=true |