Jonathan B. Kruskal’s research while affiliated with Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and other places

When looking directly at the location of lung nodules in chest CTs that radiologists nevertheless fail to recognize or consider, their eye movements and pupil dilation change revealing non-conscious processes detecting the “missed” nodules.

Cognitive biases are systematic thought processes involving the use of a filter of personal experiences and preferences arising from the tendency of the human brain to simplify information processing, especially when taking in vast amounts of data such as from imaging studies. These biases encompass a wide spectrum of thought processes and frequently overlap in their concepts, with multiple biases usually in operation when interpretive and perceptual errors occur in radiology. The authors review the gamut of cognitive biases that occur in radiology. These biases are organized according to their expected stage of occurrence while the radiologist reads and interprets an imaging study. In addition, the authors propose several additional cognitive biases that have not yet, to their knowledge, been defined in the radiologic literature but are applicable to diagnostic radiology. Case examples are used to illustrate potential biases and their impact, with emergency radiology serving as the clinical paradigm, given the associated high imaging volumes, wide diversity of imaging examinations, and rapid pace, which can further increase a radiologist's reliance on biases and heuristics. Potential strategies to recognize and overcome one's personal biases at each stage of image interpretation are also discussed. Awareness of such biases and their unintended effects on imaging interpretations and patient outcomes may help make radiologists cognizant of their own biases that can result in diagnostic errors. Identification of cognitive bias in departmental and systematic quality improvement practices may represent another tool to prevent diagnostic errors in radiology. ©RSNA, 2024 See the invited commentary by Larson in this issue.

After a slow and challenging transition period, peer learning and improvement (PLI) is now being more widely adopted by practices as an option for continuous personal and practice performance improvement. In addition to gaps that exist in the understanding of what PLI is and how it should be practiced, wide variation exists in how the process is implemented, administered, how outcomes are measured, and what strategies are employed to engage radiologists. This report aims to describe lessons learned from our 20-year experience with the design, implementation, and continuous improvements of a PLI program in a large academic program. Since initial implementation in 2004, an oversight team prospectively documented iterative process improvements and data submission trends in our PLI process. Process data included strategies for engaging radiologists in the PLI process (fostering case submission, PLI meeting participation), steps for achieving regulatory compliance, and template content for facilitating the value and impact of PLI meetings (case analysis, review of contributing factors, identification of improvement opportunities). Submission trends, submitted case content, and improvement opportunities varied by clinical section. Process improvements that fostered engagement included closing the loop with participants, expanding criteria for case submission beyond interpretive disagreements (e.g., great pickups, near misses), minimizing impacts to workflow, and using evidence-based templates for case and contributor categorization, bias analysis, and identification of improvement opportunities. Implementing an effective PLI program requires sustained communication, education, and continuous process improvement. While PLI can certainly lead to process and individual performance improvement, the program requires trained champions, designated time, effort, resources, education, and patience to be effectively implemented.

In 2012, the Society of Abdominal Radiology (SAR) was formed by the merger of the Society of Gastrointestinal Radiologists (SGR) and the Society of Uroradiology (SUR). On the occasion of SAR’s ten year anniversary, this commentary describes important changes in society structure, the growth and diversity of society membership, new educational and research initiatives, intersociety and international outreach, and plans for the future.

Purpose To assess whether adherence to a post-procedure close-out (PPC) checklist decreases adverse events during image-guided procedures. Materials and methods Based on the analysis of prior adverse events related to image-guided procedures, the radiology quality committee developed a PPC checklist. Rate of serious reportable events related to image-guided procedures performed in Radiology were recorded annually from 2015-2021. Rate of adverse events was normalized to the procedure volume in the corresponding time periods. Number of patients requiring repeat procedures were recorded. Severity of impact was classified according to the SIR Adverse Event Classification System. Annual rates were compared for time periods prior to (2015, 2016) and after implementation of PPC (2017-2021). Results 77 safety reports were identified in image guided-procedures over the study period. 43 cases were not related to the PPC leaving 34 cases for analysis. Radiology adverse events decreased from 0.069% (14/20,218, 7/year) prior to implementation of PPC to 0.034% (20/58,793, 4/year), (p=0.05, 43% decrease). Radiology repeat procedures decreased from 0.040% (8/20,218, 4/year) prior to implementation of PPC to 0.007% (4/58,793, 0.8/year), (p=0.0033, 80% decrease). Severity of adverse events decreased (p=0.009). Conclusion Implementation of a post-procedure close-out checklist improved patient outcomes by decreasing the number of adverse events that occur from inadequate safety processes at the conclusion of an image-guided procedure by 43%, the need for repeat procedures by 80% and the severity of impact of an error.

Background Emotional harm incidents in health care may result in lost trust and adverse outcomes. However, investigations of emotional harm in radiology departments remain lacking. Purpose To better understand contributors and clinical scenarios in which emotional harm can occur in radiology, to document incidences, and to develop preventative countermeasures. Materials and Methods A large tertiary hospital adverse event reporting system was retrospectively searched for submissions under the category of dignity and respect in radiology between December 2014 and December 2020. Submissions were assigned to one of 14 categories per a previously developed classification system. Root-cause analysis of events was performed with a focus on countermeasures for future prevention. The person experiencing emotional harm (patient or staff) was noted. Results Of all radiology-related submissions, 37 of 3032 (1.2%) identified 43 dignity and respect incidents: failure to be patient centered (n = 23; 54%), disrespectful communication (n = 16; 37%), privacy violation (n = 2; 5%), minimization of patient concerns (n = 1; 2%), and loss of property (n = 1; 2%). Failure to be patient centered (n = 23) was subcategorized into disregard for patient preference (12 of 23; 52%), delay in care (eight of 23; 35%), and ineffective communication (three of 23; 13%). Of the 43 incidents, 32 involved patients (74%) and 11 involved staff (26%). Emotional harm in staff was because of disrespectful communication from other staff (eight of 11; 73%). Seventy-three countermeasures were identified: staff communication training (n = 32; 44%), individual feedback (n = 18; 25%), system innovation (n = 16; 22%), improvement of existing communication processes (n = 3; 4%), process reminders (n = 3; 4%), and unclear (n = 1; 1%). Individual feedback and staff communication training that focused on active listening, asking for the patient's preferences, and closed-loop communication addressed 34 of the 43 incidents (79%). Conclusion Most emotional harm incidents were from disrespectful communication and failure to be patient centered. Providing training focused on active listening, asking for patient's preferences, and closed-loop communication would potentially prevent most of these incidents. © RSNA, 2021 See also the editorial by Bruno in this issue.

The acute consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic have impacted wellness strategies aimed at mitigating the pre-existing epidemic of burnout in radiology. Specifically, safety measures including social distancing requirements, effective communications, supporting remote and distributed work teams, and newly exposed employment and treatment inequities have challenged many major efforts at fostering professional fulfillment. To get our wellness efforts back on track, and to achieve a new and perhaps even a better “normal,” will require refocusing and reconsidering ways to foster and build a culture of wellness, implementing practices that improve work efficiencies, and supporting personal health, wellness behaviors, and resilience. Optimizing meaning in work is also critical for well-being and professional fulfillment. In addition to these earlier approaches, organizations and leaders will need to reprioritize efforts to build high-functioning cohesive and connected teams; to train, implement, and manage peer-support practices; and to support posttraumatic growth. This growth represents the positive psychological changes that can occur after highly challenging life circumstances and, when successful, allows individuals to achieve a higher level of functioning by addressing and learning from the precipitating event. Our practices can support this growth through education, emotional regulation, and disclosure, by developing a narrative that reimagines a hoped-for better future and by finding meaning through services that benefit others.

The Covid-19 pandemic surges of 2020 resulted in major operational, personal, and financial impacts on US radiology practices. In response, a series of strategic and intentional operational changes were implemented, varying by practice size, structure and model. In reviewing the many business lessons that we learned during the pandemic, it became clear that for a business to be successful, a host of additional supportive factors are necessary. In addition to timely expense reductions, optimizing revenue capture and close monitoring and management of cash and reserves available for use, we also consider effective leadership and communication strategies, maintenance of a healthy and adequately staffed team, support for a remote work environment and flexible staffing models. Other ingredients include effectively embracing digital media for communications, careful attention to current and new stakeholders and the service delivered to them, understanding federal and state regulatory changes issued in response to the pandemic, close collaboration with the Human Resources office, and an early focus on redesigning your future practice structure and function, including disaster and downtime planning. This review aims to share lessons to enable leaders of an imaging enterprise to be better prepared for similar and future surges.

Since its introduction nearly 20 years ago, score-based peer review has not been shown to have meaningful impact on improving radiologist performance or to be a valid measurement instrument of radiologist performance. A new paradigm has emerged, peer learning, which is a group activity in which expert professionals review one another’s work, actively give and receive feedback in a constructive manner, teach and learn from one another, and mutually commit to improving performance as individuals, as a group, and as a system. Many radiology practices are beginning to transition from score-based peer review to peer learning. To address challenges faced by these practices, a 1-day summit was convened at Harvard Medical School in January 2020, sponsored by the ACR. Several key themes emerged. Elements considered key to a peer-learning program include broad group participation, active identification of learning opportunities, individual feedback, peer-learning conferences, link with process and system improvement activities, preservation of organizational culture, sequestration of peer-learning activities, and program management. Radiologists and practice leaders are encouraged to develop peer-learning programs tailored to their local practice environment and foster a positive organizational culture. Health system administrators should support active peer-learning programs in the place of score-based peer review. Accrediting organizations should formally recognize it as an acceptable form of peer review and specify minimum criteria for peer-learning programs. IT system vendors should actively collaborate with radiology organizations to develop solutions that support the efficient and effective management of local peer-learning programs.