The Academic Radiologist’s Clinical Productivity
ABSTRACT The purpose of this project was to further understand the academic radiologist's clinical workload with comparison to the prior studies in the past decade. This updated data is very important in determining faculty staffing requirements.
A survey performed by the Society of Chairmen of Academic Radiology Departments (SCARD) collected data in 2003 for radiologists in 23 departments. This data included Current Procedure Terminology (CPT) codes by radiologist. The CPT codes were converted into relative value units (RVUs) per full-time equivalent (FTE) faculty. By grouping the CPT codes into similar examination categories, adjustment factors were created for the RVU values for each CPT in order to compensate for workload variations. These adjustment factors are identical to the adjustments made in 2001 except for a new factor for nuclear medicine.
Overall, the average clinical workload in 2003 was 5,872 RVU/FTE, a 32% increase compared to 4,458 RVU/FTE in 1998 and 55% increase compared to 3,790 RVU/FTE in 1996. The average number of examinations per FTE had a smaller (17%) increase since 1998. The adjustment factors remain very similar to those presented in 2001. The only change was a new adjustment factor of 1.3 for nuclear medicine.
Clinical workload as measured by RVU/FTE and adjusted RVU/FTE are very useful for determining optimal staffing in subspecialty sections and in the department as a whole. The workload continues to increase, but more in examination complexity than in numbers of procedures overall.
SourceAvailable from: Woong-Sub Park[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was a quantitative analysis for the influence of physician's assistants on national health insurance revenue and number of patients in clinic. The data was derived from the Korean national health insurance. That was complete enumeration. Dependent variables were measured by national health insurance revenue and number of patients. Independent variables were reported physician's assistants that the number of nurse, nurse-aid, technologist of clinical laboratory, physical therapist and radiologist in clinic. Confounding variables were classified by demand(region, number of inhabitants, number of clinics, number of bed per a hundred thousand persons) and supply(sex and age of representative, number of bed, subjective of medical treatment). On the multiple regression analyses, the physician's assistants that nurse, nurse-aid, technologist of clinical laboratory and physical therapist were statistically significant for outputs. But radiologist was statistically significant only for number of patient.01/2007; 17(2). DOI:10.4332/KJHPA.2007.17.2.018
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Part of how an applicant is judged is by the quality of questions he/she asks. If the answers to the questions could be readily found with minimal research, that does not give a good impression. Failure to ask good questions can be viewed as a lack of knowledge, preparation, or interest. If the candidate asks many questions about finances and vacations during the opening minutes of an interview, without inquiring about the practice, that also does not give a good impression. On the other hand, during the later phases of an interview day(s), questions regarding remuneration, call, and time off should be asked.
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE. In this article, we describe some of the cognitive and system-based sources of detection and interpretation errors in diagnostic radiology and discuss potential approaches to help reduce misdiagnoses. CONCLUSION. Every radiologist worries about missing a diagnosis or giving a false-positive reading. The retrospective error rate among radiologic examinations is approximately 30%, with real-time errors in daily radiology practice averaging 3-5%. Nearly 75% of all medical malpractice claims against radiologists are related to diagnostic errors. As medical reimbursement trends downward, radiologists attempt to compensate by undertaking additional responsibilities to increase productivity. The increased workload, rising quality expectations, cognitive biases, and poor system factors all contribute to diagnostic errors in radiology. Diagnostic errors are underrecognized and underappreciated in radiology practice. This is due to the inability to obtain reliable national estimates of the impact, the difficulty in evaluating effectiveness of potential interventions, and the poor response to systemwide solutions. Most of our clinical work is executed through type 1 processes to minimize cost, anxiety, and delay; however, type 1 processes are also vulnerable to errors. Instead of trying to completely eliminate cognitive shortcuts that serve us well most of the time, becoming aware of common biases and using metacognitive strategies to mitigate the effects have the potential to create sustainable improvement in diagnostic errors.American Journal of Roentgenology 09/2013; 201(3):611-7. DOI:10.2214/AJR.12.10375 · 2.74 Impact Factor