@article{maurer_time_2021,
	title = {Time {Requirement} and {Feasibility} of a {Systematic} {Quality} {Peer} {Review} of {Reporting} in {Radiology}},
	volume = {193},
	issn = {1438-9010},
	doi = {10.1055/a-1178-1113},
	abstract = {OBJECTIVE: To estimate the human resources required for a retrospective quality review of different percentages of all routine diagnostic procedures in the Department of Radiology at Bern University Hospital, Switzerland.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three board-certified radiologists retrospectively evaluated the quality of the radiological reports of a total of 150 examinations (5 different examination types: abdominal CT, chest CT, mammography, conventional X-ray images and abdominal MRI). Each report was assigned a RADPEER score of 1 to 3 (score 1: concur with previous interpretation; score 2: discrepancy in interpretation/not ordinarily expected to be made; score 3: discrepancy in interpretation/should be made most of the time). The time (in seconds, s) required for each review was documented and compared. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to calculate the total workload for reviewing different percentages of the total annual reporting volume of the clinic.
RESULTS: Among the total of 450 reviews analyzed, 91.1 \% (410/450) were assigned a score of 1 and 8.9 \% (40/450) were assigned scores of 2 or 3. The average time (in seconds) required for a peer review was 60.4 s (min. 5 s, max. 245 s). The reviewer with the greatest clinical experience needed significantly less time for reviewing the reports than the two reviewers with less clinical expertise (p {\textless} 0.05). Average review times were longer for discrepant ratings with a score of 2 or 3 (p {\textless} 0.05). The total time requirement calculated for reviewing all 5 types of examination for one year would be more than 1200 working hours.
CONCLUSION: A retrospective peer review of reports of radiological examinations using the RADPEER system requires considerable human resources. However, to improve quality, it seems feasible to peer review at least a portion of the total yearly reporting volume.
KEY POINTS: · A systematic retrospective assessment of the content of radiological reports using the RADPEER system involves high personnel costs.. · The retrospective assessment of all reports of a clinic or practice seems unrealistic due to the lack of highly specialized personnel.. · At least part of all reports should be reviewed with the aim of improving the quality of reports..
CITATION FORMAT: · Maurer MH, Brönnimann M, Schroeder C et al. Time Requirement and Feasibility of a Systematic Quality Peer Review of Reporting in Radiology. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2021; 193: 160 - 167.},
	language = {eng},
	number = {2},
	journal = {RoFo: Fortschritte Auf Dem Gebiete Der Rontgenstrahlen Und Der Nuklearmedizin},
	author = {Maurer, Martin H. and Brönnimann, Michael and Schroeder, Christophe and Ghadamgahi, Ehssan and Streitparth, Florian and Heverhagen, Johannes T. and Leichtle, Alexander and de Bucourt, Maximilian and Meyl, Tobias Philipp},
	month = feb,
	year = {2021},
	pmid = {32698235},
	keywords = {Abdominal Cavity, Feasibility Studies, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Mammography, Peer Review, Quality Assurance, Health Care, Radiography, Radiologists, Radiology, Research Report, Retrospective Studies, Specialty Boards, Switzerland, Thorax, Time Factors, Tomography, X-Ray Computed, Workload},
	pages = {160--167},
}

{"_id":"SHaaMeQTGXbW5XJjB","bibbaseid":"maurer-brnnimann-schroeder-ghadamgahi-streitparth-heverhagen-leichtle-debucourt-etal-timerequirementandfeasibilityofasystematicqualitypeerreviewofreportinginradiology-2021","author_short":["Maurer, M. H.","Brönnimann, M.","Schroeder, C.","Ghadamgahi, E.","Streitparth, F.","Heverhagen, J. T.","Leichtle, A.","de Bucourt, M.","Meyl, T. P."],"bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","title":"Time Requirement and Feasibility of a Systematic Quality Peer Review of Reporting in Radiology","volume":"193","issn":"1438-9010","doi":"10.1055/a-1178-1113","abstract":"OBJECTIVE: To estimate the human resources required for a retrospective quality review of different percentages of all routine diagnostic procedures in the Department of Radiology at Bern University Hospital, Switzerland. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three board-certified radiologists retrospectively evaluated the quality of the radiological reports of a total of 150 examinations (5 different examination types: abdominal CT, chest CT, mammography, conventional X-ray images and abdominal MRI). Each report was assigned a RADPEER score of 1 to 3 (score 1: concur with previous interpretation; score 2: discrepancy in interpretation/not ordinarily expected to be made; score 3: discrepancy in interpretation/should be made most of the time). The time (in seconds, s) required for each review was documented and compared. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to calculate the total workload for reviewing different percentages of the total annual reporting volume of the clinic. RESULTS: Among the total of 450 reviews analyzed, 91.1 % (410/450) were assigned a score of 1 and 8.9 % (40/450) were assigned scores of 2 or 3. The average time (in seconds) required for a peer review was 60.4 s (min. 5 s, max. 245 s). The reviewer with the greatest clinical experience needed significantly less time for reviewing the reports than the two reviewers with less clinical expertise (p \\textless 0.05). Average review times were longer for discrepant ratings with a score of 2 or 3 (p \\textless 0.05). The total time requirement calculated for reviewing all 5 types of examination for one year would be more than 1200 working hours. CONCLUSION: A retrospective peer review of reports of radiological examinations using the RADPEER system requires considerable human resources. However, to improve quality, it seems feasible to peer review at least a portion of the total yearly reporting volume. KEY POINTS: · A systematic retrospective assessment of the content of radiological reports using the RADPEER system involves high personnel costs.. · The retrospective assessment of all reports of a clinic or practice seems unrealistic due to the lack of highly specialized personnel.. · At least part of all reports should be reviewed with the aim of improving the quality of reports.. CITATION FORMAT: · Maurer MH, Brönnimann M, Schroeder C et al. Time Requirement and Feasibility of a Systematic Quality Peer Review of Reporting in Radiology. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2021; 193: 160 - 167.","language":"eng","number":"2","journal":"RoFo: Fortschritte Auf Dem Gebiete Der Rontgenstrahlen Und Der Nuklearmedizin","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Maurer"],"firstnames":["Martin","H."],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Brönnimann"],"firstnames":["Michael"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Schroeder"],"firstnames":["Christophe"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Ghadamgahi"],"firstnames":["Ehssan"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Streitparth"],"firstnames":["Florian"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Heverhagen"],"firstnames":["Johannes","T."],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Leichtle"],"firstnames":["Alexander"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":["de"],"lastnames":["Bucourt"],"firstnames":["Maximilian"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Meyl"],"firstnames":["Tobias","Philipp"],"suffixes":[]}],"month":"February","year":"2021","pmid":"32698235","keywords":"Abdominal Cavity, Feasibility Studies, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Mammography, Peer Review, Quality Assurance, Health Care, Radiography, Radiologists, Radiology, Research Report, Retrospective Studies, Specialty Boards, Switzerland, Thorax, Time Factors, Tomography, X-Ray Computed, Workload","pages":"160–167","bibtex":"@article{maurer_time_2021,\n\ttitle = {Time {Requirement} and {Feasibility} of a {Systematic} {Quality} {Peer} {Review} of {Reporting} in {Radiology}},\n\tvolume = {193},\n\tissn = {1438-9010},\n\tdoi = {10.1055/a-1178-1113},\n\tabstract = {OBJECTIVE: To estimate the human resources required for a retrospective quality review of different percentages of all routine diagnostic procedures in the Department of Radiology at Bern University Hospital, Switzerland.\nMATERIALS AND METHODS: Three board-certified radiologists retrospectively evaluated the quality of the radiological reports of a total of 150 examinations (5 different examination types: abdominal CT, chest CT, mammography, conventional X-ray images and abdominal MRI). Each report was assigned a RADPEER score of 1 to 3 (score 1: concur with previous interpretation; score 2: discrepancy in interpretation/not ordinarily expected to be made; score 3: discrepancy in interpretation/should be made most of the time). The time (in seconds, s) required for each review was documented and compared. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to calculate the total workload for reviewing different percentages of the total annual reporting volume of the clinic.\nRESULTS: Among the total of 450 reviews analyzed, 91.1 \\% (410/450) were assigned a score of 1 and 8.9 \\% (40/450) were assigned scores of 2 or 3. The average time (in seconds) required for a peer review was 60.4 s (min. 5 s, max. 245 s). The reviewer with the greatest clinical experience needed significantly less time for reviewing the reports than the two reviewers with less clinical expertise (p {\\textless} 0.05). Average review times were longer for discrepant ratings with a score of 2 or 3 (p {\\textless} 0.05). The total time requirement calculated for reviewing all 5 types of examination for one year would be more than 1200 working hours.\nCONCLUSION: A retrospective peer review of reports of radiological examinations using the RADPEER system requires considerable human resources. However, to improve quality, it seems feasible to peer review at least a portion of the total yearly reporting volume.\nKEY POINTS: · A systematic retrospective assessment of the content of radiological reports using the RADPEER system involves high personnel costs.. · The retrospective assessment of all reports of a clinic or practice seems unrealistic due to the lack of highly specialized personnel.. · At least part of all reports should be reviewed with the aim of improving the quality of reports..\nCITATION FORMAT: · Maurer MH, Brönnimann M, Schroeder C et al. Time Requirement and Feasibility of a Systematic Quality Peer Review of Reporting in Radiology. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2021; 193: 160 - 167.},\n\tlanguage = {eng},\n\tnumber = {2},\n\tjournal = {RoFo: Fortschritte Auf Dem Gebiete Der Rontgenstrahlen Und Der Nuklearmedizin},\n\tauthor = {Maurer, Martin H. and Brönnimann, Michael and Schroeder, Christophe and Ghadamgahi, Ehssan and Streitparth, Florian and Heverhagen, Johannes T. and Leichtle, Alexander and de Bucourt, Maximilian and Meyl, Tobias Philipp},\n\tmonth = feb,\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tpmid = {32698235},\n\tkeywords = {Abdominal Cavity, Feasibility Studies, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Mammography, Peer Review, Quality Assurance, Health Care, Radiography, Radiologists, Radiology, Research Report, Retrospective Studies, Specialty Boards, Switzerland, Thorax, Time Factors, Tomography, X-Ray Computed, Workload},\n\tpages = {160--167},\n}\n\n","author_short":["Maurer, M. H.","Brönnimann, M.","Schroeder, C.","Ghadamgahi, E.","Streitparth, F.","Heverhagen, J. T.","Leichtle, A.","de Bucourt, M.","Meyl, T. P."],"key":"maurer_time_2021","id":"maurer_time_2021","bibbaseid":"maurer-brnnimann-schroeder-ghadamgahi-streitparth-heverhagen-leichtle-debucourt-etal-timerequirementandfeasibilityofasystematicqualitypeerreviewofreportinginradiology-2021","role":"author","urls":{},"keyword":["Abdominal Cavity","Feasibility Studies","Humans","Magnetic Resonance Imaging","Mammography","Peer Review","Quality Assurance","Health Care","Radiography","Radiologists","Radiology","Research Report","Retrospective Studies","Specialty Boards","Switzerland","Thorax","Time Factors","Tomography","X-Ray Computed","Workload"],"metadata":{"authorlinks":{}}},"bibtype":"article","biburl":"https://bibbase.org/zotero/leichtle","dataSources":["62megs8vtnRMbYDH5"],"keywords":["abdominal cavity","feasibility studies","humans","magnetic resonance imaging","mammography","peer review","quality assurance","health care","radiography","radiologists","radiology","research report","retrospective studies","specialty boards","switzerland","thorax","time factors","tomography","x-ray computed","workload"],"search_terms":["time","requirement","feasibility","systematic","quality","peer","review","reporting","radiology","maurer","brönnimann","schroeder","ghadamgahi","streitparth","heverhagen","leichtle","de bucourt","meyl"],"title":"Time Requirement and Feasibility of a Systematic Quality Peer Review of Reporting in Radiology","year":2021}