Restructuring of a Hospital Radiology Department: Subspecialization Between Man, Machine, and Multidisciplinary Board

Abstract

Background Radiology, like almost no other discipline, is faced with a rapid increase in information and technology. This and the growing demands regarding referring medicine, quality requirements, and personnel efficiency increasingly require subspecialization in terms of content. There is already an established move towards radiological subspecialization in the Anglo-American region. In this review article, the content and possibilities of restructuring a hospital radiology department are presented in order to support acceptance in German-speaking countries.

Method Based on the current literature, the aspects of subspecialized radiology as well as its necessity, advantages, and disadvantages are discussed and the challenges to hospital management with respect to strategic implementation in the individual phases are presented based on the example of a university radiology department. The viewpoints also take into account the education regulations and integrate a modern learning concept.

Results and Conclusion Modern restructuring of hospital radiology departments is faced with increasing demands on a traditionally technically organized radiology department with regard to the complexity of referring medicine, subspecialization pressure (including in certified boards), and staff efficiency. The restructuring of a radiology department must be aligned with the clinical requirements and discussed in the overall concept of radiology including its environment.

Key points: 

• The tremendous expansion of knowledge requires a content-based subspecialization of modern radiology as a cross-sectional discipline.

• Proactive radiology meets the increasing demands of its clinical partners and offers great potential for improving quality and efficiency.

• The restructuring of a hospital radiology department requires well-planned strategic management taking into account all involved processes, resources, and personnel qualifications.

Citation Format

• Henkelmann J, Ehrengut C, Denecke T. Restructuring of a Hospital Radiology Department: Subspecialization Between Man, Machine, and Multidisciplinary Board. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2022; 194: 152 – 159

Key words

subspecialization - education - process optimization - department structure - hospital management

Publication History

Received: 31 January 2021

Accepted: 13 June 2021

Article published online:
21 October 2021

• References

• 1 Winter J. Innovativer Einsatz künstlicher Intelligenz bei bildgebenden Verfahren im klinischen Alltag. In: Pfannstiel MA, Kassel K, Rasche C. (eds) Innovationen und Innovationsmanagement im Gesundheitswesen. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden; 2020: 701-714
• 2 Haubold J. Künstliche Intelligenz in der Radiologie: Was ist in den nächsten Jahren zu erwarten?. Der Radiologe 2020; 60: 64-69
• 3 Smith GG, Thrall JH, Pentecost MJ. et al. Subspecialization in radiology and radiation oncology. Journal of the American College of Radiology: JACR 2009; 6: 147-159.e4
• 4 Reiser M. Subspezialisierung in der Radiologie. Der Radiologe 2005; 45: 315-318
• 5 Lesslie MD, Parikh JR. Multidisciplinary Tumor Boards: An Opportunity for Radiologists to Demonstrate Value. Academic radiology 2017; 24: 107-110
• 6 Kruskal JB, Larson DB. Strategies for Radiology to Thrive in the Value Era. Radiology 2018; 289: 3-7
• 7 Halpern BS, Mayerhoefer ME. Tumorboards: Warum wir sie brauchen und welche Ausstattung nötig ist. Der Radiologe 2013; 53: 336-340
• 8 Flemming DJ, Gunderman RB. Should We Think of Radiologists as Nonclinicians?. Journal of the American College of Radiology: JACR 2016; 13: 875-877
• 9 Eakins C, Ellis WD, Pruthi S. et al. Second opinion interpretations by specialty radiologists at a pediatric hospital: rate of disagreement and clinical implications. Am J Roentgenol. American journal of roentgenology 2012; 199: 916-920
• 10 Sickles EA, Wolverton DE, Dee KE. Performance parameters for screening and diagnostic mammography: specialist and general radiologists. Radiology 2002; 224: 861-869
• 11 Zan E, Yousem DM, Carone M. et al. Second-opinion consultations in neuroradiology. Radiology 2010; 255: 135-141
• 12 Bell ME, Patel MD. The degree of abdominal imaging (AI) subspecialization of the reviewing radiologist significantly impacts the number of clinically relevant and incidental discrepancies identified during peer review of emergency after-hours body CT studies. Abdominal imaging 2014; 39: 1114-1118
• 13 Dendl L-M, Teufel A, Schleder S. et al. Analyse radiologischer Röntgendemonstrationen und deren Auswirkungen auf Therapie und Behandlungskonzepte in der Inneren Medizin. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2017; 189: 239-246
• 14 Schreyer AG, Steinhäuser RT, Rosenberg B. Externe radiologische Aufnahmen in der klinischen Routine – Eine Übersicht über die aktuelle Abrechnungssituation bei Konferenzen, Boards und Zweitmeinung. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2018
• 15 Bundesärztekammer. Clearing von Zertifizierungswildwuchs: 112. Deutscher Ärztetag.Tätigkeitsbericht der Bundesärztekammer. Mainz: 2015 09th ed. https://www.bundesaerztekammer.de/aerzte/qualitaetssicherung/zentren-und-zertifizierung/
• 16 Schweizerische Akademie der Medizinischen Wissenschaften. Zertifzierung im medizinischen Kontext: Empfehlungen der Schweizerischen Akademie der Medizinischen Wissenschaften. 2011 1st ed.
• 17 Boland GWL. Stakeholder expectations for radiologists: obstacles or opportunities?. Journal of the American College of Radiology: JACR 2006; 3: 156-163
• 18 Boland GWL. Voice recognition technology for radiology reporting: transforming the radiologistʼ's value proposition. Journal of the American College of Radiology: JACR 2007; 4: 865-867
• 19 Stern C, Boehm T, Seifert B. et al. Subspezialisierte Befundung beschleunigt die Befunddurchlaufzeit radiologischer Berichte und steigert die Produktivität. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2018; 190: 623-629
• 20 Meyl TP, de Bucourt M, Berghöfer A. et al. Subspecialization in radiology: effects on the diagnostic spectrum of radiologists and report turnaround time in a Swiss university hospital. La Radiologia medica 2019; 124: 860-869
• 21 Demehri S, Recht MP, Lee CI. Comparative Effectiveness Research in Musculoskeletal Imaging. Seminars in musculoskeletal radiology 2017; 21: 17-22
• 22 Kirchner H, Flesch M. Personalmanagement für Leitende Ärzte: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2014.
• 23 Prevedello LM, Ledbetter S, Farkas C. et al. Implementation of speech recognition in a community-based radiology practice: effect on report turnaround times. Journal of the American College of Radiology: JACR 2014; 11: 402-406
• 24 Mehta A, Dreyer K, Boland G. et al. Do picture archiving and communication systems improve report turnaround times?. Journal of digital imaging 2000; 13: 105-107
• 25 Lewin K. Frontiers in group dynamics: Concept, Method and Reality in Social Science; Social Equilibria and Social Change. London: The Travistock Institute of Human Relations; 1947
• 26 Kotter JP, Darius B. Chaos, Wandel, Führung – Leading change. 2nd ed. Düsseldorf: ECON-Verl; 1998
• 27 Brehm K. Process Mining: Komplexe Strukturen sichtbar machen.. kma – Klinik Management aktuell 2020; 25: 34-35
• 28 Adam G, Lorenzen J, Krupski G. et al. Aufbau eines Qualitätsmanagementsystems nach DIN EN ISO 9001:2000 in einer radiologischen Universitätsklinik. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2003; 175: 176-182
• 29 Deitch CH, Chan WC, Sunshine JH. et al. Quality assessment and improvement: what radiologists do and think. Am J Roentgenol. American journal of roentgenology 1994; 163: 1245-1254
• 30 Laurila J, Suramo I, Brommels M. et al. Activity-based costing in radiology. Application in a pediatric radiological unit. Acta radiologica (Stockholm, Sweden: 1987) 2000; 41: 189-195
• 31 Ertl-Wagner B, Barkhausen J, Mahnken AH. et al. White Paper: Curriculum Radiologie für das Studium der Humanmedizin in Deutschland. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2016; 188: 1017-1023