Performance indicators in academic radiology departments in the United States

• Autores: Silvia Ondategui Parra
• Directores de la Tesis: Vicente Ortún Rubio (dir. tes.), Fernando García Benavides (codir. tes.)
• Lectura: En la Universitat Pompeu Fabra ( España ) en 2008
• Idioma: español
• Materias:
  • Ciencias médicas
    • Salud publica
  • Ciencias económicas
    • Organización y dirección de empresas
• Enlaces
  • Tesis en acceso abierto en:  TDX  e-Repositori UPF 
• Resumen

  • PURPOSE: To determine the management performance indicators most frequently utilized in academic radiology departments in the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This investigation met the criteria for an exemption from institutional review board approval. A cross-sectional study in which a validated national survey was sent to members of the Society of Chairmen of Academic Radiology Departments (SCARD) was conducted. The survey was designed to examine the following six categories of 28 performance indicators: (a) general organization, (b) volume and productivity, (c) radiology reporting, (d) access to examinations, (e) customer satisfaction, and (f) finance. A total of 158 variables were included in the analysis. Summary statistics, the 2 test, rank correlation, multiple regression analysis, and analysis of variance were used.

    RESULTS: A response rate of 42% (55 of 132 SCARD members) was achieved. The mean number of performance indicators used by radiology departments was 16 ± 6.35 (standard deviation). The most frequently utilized performance indicators were as follows: (a) productivity, in terms of examination volume (78% [43 departments]) and examination volume per modality (78% [43 departments]); (b) reporting, in terms of report turnaround (82% [45 departments]) and transcription time (71% [39 departments]); (c) access, in terms of appointment access to magnetic resonance imaging (80% [44 departments]); (d) satisfaction, in terms of number of patient complaints (84% [46 departments]); and (e) finance, in terms of expenses (67% [37 departments]). Regression analysis revealed that the numbers of performance indicators in each category were statistically significant in predicting the total number of performance indicators used (P < .001 for all). Numbers of productivity and financial indicators were moderately correlated (r = 0.51). However, there were no statistically significant correlations between the numbers of performance indicators used and hospital location, hospital size, or department size (P > .4 for all).

    CONCLUSION: Assessing departmental performance with a wide range of management indicators is not yet an established and standardized practice in academic radiology departments in the United States. Among all indicators, productivity indicators are the most frequently used.