Optimized delivery radiological reports: applying Six Sigma methodology to a radiology department.
OBJECTIVE
To optimise the process of reporting and delivering radiological examinations with a view to achieving 100% service delivery within 72 hours to outpatients and 36 hours to inpatients. To this end, we used the Six Sigma method which adopts a systematic approach and rigorous statistical analysis to analyse and improve processes, by reducing variability and minimising errors. More specifically, our study focused on the process of radiological report creation, from the end of the examination to the time when the report is made available to the patient, to examine the bottlenecks and identify the measures to be taken to improve the process.


METHODS
Six Sigma uses a five-step problem-solving process called DMAIC, an acronym for Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve and Control. The first step is to define the problem and the elements crucial to quality, in terms of Total Quality Control. Next, the situation is analysed to identify the root causes of the problem and determine which of these is most influential. The situation is then improved by implementing change. Finally, to make sure that the change is long-lasting, measures are taken to sustain the improvements and obtain long-term control. In our case we analysed all of the phases the report passes through before reaching the user, and studied the impact of voice-recognition reporting on the speed of the report creation process.


RESULTS
Analysis of the information collected showed that the tools available for report creation (dictaphone, voice-recognition system) and the transport of films and reports were the two critical elements on which to focus our efforts. Of all the phases making up the process, reporting (from end of examination to end of reporting) and distribution (from the report available to administrative staff to report available to the patient) account for 90% of process variability (73% and 17%, respectively). We further found that the reports dictated into a voice-recognition reporting system are delivered in 45 hours (median), whereas those dictated using a dictaphone take 96 hours: voice-recognition reporting systems therefore improve performance by 50 hours. Unfortunately, 38% of our reports are delivered within longer timeframes than the 72h for outpatients and 36h for inpatients agreed with the service users. Reports for inpatients have much faster delivery times and lower variability, as 95% of these examinations are reported using voice-recognition reporting (as a result of the greater sensitivity of physicians to the problem of inpatient waiting times). For conventional radiology examinations, numerically greater than CT or MRI, there is a stronger tendency to use the dictaphone which allows for faster dictation as it is unburdened by administrative tasks such as entering examination codes, correcting errors, etc. Freelance status has no impact on report delivery times, service delivery being the same as in the institutional setting. The subprocess of reporting is strongly affected by the choice of reporting method (voice-recognition system or dictaphone), whereas report delivery is affected by the individual's behaviour patterns and ultimately by habits generated by the lack of a clearly charted process (lack of synchronisation among the various phases), and therefore potentially avoidable.


CONCLUSIONS
The analytical study of the various phases of examination reporting, from writing to delivery, allowed us to identify the process bottlenecks and take corrective measures. Regardless of imaging modality and individual physician, examination reporting consistently takes longer when a dictaphone is used instead of a voice-recognition reporting system, as this makes the process more complex. To improve the two critical subprocesses whilst maintaining constant resources, a first step is to abandon the dictaphone in favour of the voice-recognition system. In addition, we are experimenting other measures to improve the collection and sorting of examinations and the delivery of reports: the technical staff take the films from the examination rooms to the reporting rooms three times a day; the radiologists collect their examinations and prepare the reports, possibly on the same day; the radiologists leave their signed reports on the table in the central reporting room; the administrative staff collect the signed reports three times a day in the morning and afternoon to be able to deliver them on the same day.


CONCLUSIONS
This project has allowed us to become familiar with the principles of total quality, to better understand our internal processes and to take effective measures to optimise them. This has resulted in enhanced satisfaction of all the department staff and has laid the grounds for further measures in the future.
Cavagna
Enrico
E
U.O.A. di Radiodiagnostica, Ospedale Civile San Martino, Belluno, Italy. enrico.cavagna@ulss.belluno.it
Berletti
Riccardo
R
Schiavon
Francesco
F
Scarsi
Barbara
B
Barbato
Giuseppe
G
D006801:Humans; D008499:Medical Records; D017064:Process Assessment, Health Care; D011872:Radiology Department, Hospital / Q000458:organization & administration*; D017749:Total Quality Management