You get lots of information and motivation from the TAT report, so use it. Good TAT means happy customers, faster charge submission and positive quality metrics.
By now most of us see TAT (turnaround time) reports. Most people understand why they matter.
So what do we realize we get out of “good” TAT? We get happy customers, faster charge submission and positive quality metrics. But TAT is something many folks dread. It can be inaccurate at times. It can become overly important, be confused with quality and lead to sloppiness. It is a tool, but only one as good as its operators.
What do I remind myself about when I see a TAT report?
TAT is the product of a number of people’s work. It’s not you versus them. This is an effort to provide good quality care, so it is a team effort, regardless of who writes the checks. Since it’s a team, work together, not against your system. Don’t be oppositional.
If you talk about it with a technical partner, like your hospital system, start with, “We’d like to make our turnaround as fast as possible and still good.” Ask them to dial in on the data and dissect it as finely as possible. That will make it as useful to you as possible. Get each time component broken out. Don’t accept things like “Patient arrival time to time of dictation” as a category without further analysis.
There is hidden time in the TAT. It is the nature of the system, reported by the technical-side most commonly, that it can overlook technical factors in the TAT. That puts the onus on the physician dictation and sign-off.
So don’t accept the TAT without reviewing it. Are there studies that are old included? What percentage of studies make it to you too slowly? Then think about why. Make sure those are identified in the report, and not counted in the standards.
The point here is not to point fingers. It is to get accurate data. For instance, we found that several studies a day were showing up from the prior day due to technical glitches in the PACS or because they were waiting for documents or comparison studies. Sure, we know that happens all the time. But if our performance standard is a percent of studies read in 24 hours, and we read about, say for example, 60 cross-sectional cases, it takes only three cases to reduce TAT by 5 percent. That makes most industry standards impossible to meet.
So make sure those are pulled out and put in their own pile. Then look at those cases individually with your technical side partners, for some period of time (a week, a month, etc.). See what is causing them to show up late and if there is a trend. Try to improve that process, too, while you work to improved dictation time and sign-off.
The radiologist impacts TAT most by improving sign-off. That is how some measure us and we all like to look good. Comparative measures can be motivation for us. I’m not afraid to have myself or my partners compared, preferably anonymously. It holds my feet to the fire to be rigorous about getting reports signed. It’s not worth risking a suit over though. Don’t be tempted to the dark side- having someone else sign for you. It is a legal morass to do so; avoid it at all costs.
You get lots of information and motivation from the TAT report, so use it.
Can Photon-Counting CT be an Alternative to MRI for Assessing Liver Fat Fraction?
March 21st 2025Photon-counting CT fat fraction evaluation offered a maximum sensitivity of 81 percent for detecting steatosis and had a 91 percent ICC agreement with MRI proton density fat fraction assessment, according to new prospective research.
The Reading Room Podcast: Current Perspectives on the Updated Appropriate Use Criteria for Brain PET
March 18th 2025In a new podcast, Satoshi Minoshima, M.D., Ph.D., and James Williams, Ph.D., share their insights on the recently updated appropriate use criteria for amyloid PET and tau PET in patients with mild cognitive impairment.
Strategies to Reduce Disparities in Interventional Radiology Care
March 19th 2025In order to help address the geographic, racial, and socioeconomic barriers that limit patient access to interventional radiology (IR) care, these authors recommend a variety of measures ranging from increased patient and physician awareness of IR to mobile IR clinics and improved understanding of social determinants of health.
AI-Initiated Recalls After Screening Mammography Demonstrate Higher PPV for Breast Cancer
March 18th 2025While recalls initiated by one of two reviewing radiologists after screening mammography were nearly 10 percent higher than recalls initiated by an AI software, the AI-initiated recalls had an 85 percent higher positive predictive value for breast cancer, according to a new study.