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 =...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:European radiology 2018-10, Vol.28 (10), p.4274-4280
Hauptverfasser: Olthof, A. W., Borstlap, J., Roeloffzen, W. W., Callenbach, P. M. C., van Ooijen, P. M. A.
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 &lt; 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 &amp; administration ; Medicine ; Medicine &amp; Public Health ; Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging ; Neuroradiology ; Oncology ; Patients ; Quality Assurance, Health Care - organization &amp; administration ; Quality control ; Quality Improvement - organization &amp; administration ; Radiology ; Radiology - organization &amp; 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 &lt; 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 &amp; administration</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine &amp; Public Health</subject><subject>Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Neuroradiology</subject><subject>Oncology</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Quality Assurance, Health Care - organization &amp; administration</subject><subject>Quality control</subject><subject>Quality Improvement - organization &amp; administration</subject><subject>Radiology</subject><subject>Radiology - organization &amp; 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 &amp; administration</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine &amp; Public Health</topic><topic>Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Neuroradiology</topic><topic>Oncology</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Quality Assurance, Health Care - organization &amp; administration</topic><topic>Quality control</topic><topic>Quality Improvement - organization &amp; administration</topic><topic>Radiology</topic><topic>Radiology - organization &amp; 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 &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies &amp; 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 &lt; 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