ArticleJournal of digital imaging2017
Improved Screening Mammogram Workflow by Maximizing PACS Streamlining Capabilities in an Academic Breast Center.
Article in Journal of digital imaging, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Improving Triage of After-Hours Radiology Examinations Through Worklist Unification.Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR · 2020Article
- Improvement of radiology reporting in a clinical cancer network: impact of an optimised multidisciplinary workflow.European radiology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to perform an operational improvement project targeted at the breast imaging reading workflow of mammography examinations at an academic medical center with its associated breast centers and satellite sites. Through careful analysis of the current workflow, two major issues were identified: stockpiling of paperwork and multiple worklists. Both issues were considered to cause significant delays to the start of interpreting screening mammograms. Four workflow changes were suggested (scanning of paperwork, worklist consolidation, use of chat functionality, and tracking of case distribution among trainees) and implemented in July 2015. Timestamp data was collected 2 months before (May-Jun) and after (Aug-Sep) the implemented changes. Generalized linear models were used to analyze the data. The results showed significant improvements for the interpretation of screening mammograms. The average time elapsed for time to open a case reduced from 70 to 28 min (60 % decrease, p < 0.001), report turn-around time with preliminary signature decreased from 151 to 107 min (29 % decrease, p < 0.001), and report turn-around time final signature from 153 to 139 min (9 % decrease, p = 0.002). These improvements were achieved while keeping the efficiency of the workflow for diagnostic mammograms at large unaltered even with increased volume of mammography examinations (31 % increase of 4344 examinations for May-Jun to 5678 examinations for Aug-Sep). In conclusion, targeted efforts to improve the breast imaging reading workflow for screening mammograms in a teaching environment provided significant performance improvements without affecting the workflow of diagnostic mammograms.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.