Department of Radiology, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, 3800 Reservoir Rd NW, Washington, DC, USA.
School of Medicine, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA.
J Imaging Inform Med. 2024 Oct;37(5):2038-2046. doi: 10.1007/s10278-024-01073-2. Epub 2024 Mar 19.
Radiologist interruptions, though often necessary, can be disruptive. Prior literature has shown interruptions to be frequent, occurring during cases, and predominantly through synchronous communication methods such as phone or in person causing significant disengagement from the study being read. Asynchronous communication methods are now more widely available in hospital systems such as ours. Considering the increasing use of asynchronous communication methods, we conducted an observational study to understand the evolving nature of radiology interruptions. We hypothesize that compared to interruptions occurring through synchronous methods, interruptions via asynchronous methods reduce the disruptive nature of interruptions by occurring between cases, being shorter, and less severe. During standard weekday hours, 30 radiologists (14 attendings, 12 residents, and 4 fellows) were directly observed for approximately 90-min sessions across three different reading rooms (body, neuroradiology, general). The frequency of interruptions was documented including characteristics such as timing, severity, method, and length. Two hundred twenty-five interruptions (43 Teams, 47 phone, 89 in-person, 46 other) occurred, averaging 2 min and 5 s with 5.2 interruptions per hour. Microsoft Teams interruptions averaged 1 min 12 s with only 60.5% during cases. In-person interruptions averaged 2 min 12 s with 82% during cases. Phone interruptions averaged 2 min and 48 s with 97.9% during cases. A substantial portion of reading room interruptions occur via predominantly asynchronous communication tools, a new development compared to prior literature. Interruptions via predominantly asynchronous communications tools are shorter and less likely to occur during cases. In our practice, we are developing tools and mechanisms to promote asynchronous communication to harness these benefits.
放射科医师的中断虽然经常是必要的,但可能会造成干扰。先前的文献表明,中断很频繁,发生在病例期间,主要通过电话或面对面等同步通信方式进行,导致阅读过程中严重分心。现在,我们的医院系统中更广泛地使用异步通信方式。考虑到异步通信方式的使用日益增加,我们进行了一项观察性研究,以了解放射科中断的演变性质。我们假设,与通过同步方法发生的中断相比,通过异步方法发生的中断在病例之间发生,持续时间更短,程度更轻,从而减少中断的干扰性质。在标准工作日期间,30 名放射科医师(14 名主治医生、12 名住院医生和 4 名研究员)在三个不同的阅读室(身体、神经放射学、普通)中直接观察了大约 90 分钟的时间段。记录了中断的频率,包括时间、严重程度、方法和长度等特征。发生了 225 次中断(43 次团队、47 次电话、89 次面对面、46 次其他),平均中断时间为 2 分 5 秒,每小时中断 5.2 次。Microsoft Teams 中断的平均时间为 1 分 12 秒,仅在病例期间占 60.5%。面对面中断的平均时间为 2 分 12 秒,在病例期间占 82%。电话中断的平均时间为 2 分 48 秒,在病例期间占 97.9%。与之前的文献相比,阅读室中断的很大一部分是通过主要的异步通信工具发生的,这是一个新的发展。通过主要的异步通信工具进行的中断时间更短,在病例期间发生的可能性更小。在我们的实践中,我们正在开发工具和机制来促进异步通信,以利用这些优势。