TY - GEN
T1 - Identifying and characterizing the 18 steps of medical imaging process workflow as a basis for targeting improvements in clinical practice
AU - Jabin, Shafiqur Rahman
AU - Mandel, Catherine
AU - Schultz, Tim
AU - Hibbert, Peter
AU - Magrabi, Farah
AU - Runciman, William
PY - 2019/12
Y1 - 2019/12
N2 - We reviewed initiatives to improve the quality and safety of health information technology in medical imaging through the lens of incident reports provided by healthcare professionals in each sequential step of the medical imaging process workflow. The 18 steps of imaging workflow were framed based on a literature review, visits to hospital radiology departments, interviews with radiologists, and iterative consultations with experts. Both inductive and deductive analyses were applied to 436 health information technology-related incidents identified from 4,915 medical imaging incident reports. In the 18 imaging workflow steps both human (58%) and technical factors (42%) were involved. Classification from the perspective of the 18 steps of the imaging workflow was useful because it orientates the reporter and analysts to the tasks at each stage, and it also informs the analysts as to where corrective strategies could be addressed. Most of the things that go wrong in healthcare occur infrequently, so collecting information after they have gone wrong is the only practical approach to identifying and characterizing them. This should become a routine part of clinical practice in a complex constantly changing system.
AB - We reviewed initiatives to improve the quality and safety of health information technology in medical imaging through the lens of incident reports provided by healthcare professionals in each sequential step of the medical imaging process workflow. The 18 steps of imaging workflow were framed based on a literature review, visits to hospital radiology departments, interviews with radiologists, and iterative consultations with experts. Both inductive and deductive analyses were applied to 436 health information technology-related incidents identified from 4,915 medical imaging incident reports. In the 18 imaging workflow steps both human (58%) and technical factors (42%) were involved. Classification from the perspective of the 18 steps of the imaging workflow was useful because it orientates the reporter and analysts to the tasks at each stage, and it also informs the analysts as to where corrective strategies could be addressed. Most of the things that go wrong in healthcare occur infrequently, so collecting information after they have gone wrong is the only practical approach to identifying and characterizing them. This should become a routine part of clinical practice in a complex constantly changing system.
KW - health information technology
KW - imaging workflow
KW - incident reports
KW - medical imaging
KW - safety and quality
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85081988140&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1109/IST48021.2019.9010117
DO - 10.1109/IST48021.2019.9010117
M3 - Conference contribution
AN - SCOPUS:85081988140
T3 - IST 2019 - IEEE International Conference on Imaging Systems and Techniques, Proceedings
BT - IST 2019 - IEEE International Conference on Imaging Systems and Techniques, Proceedings
PB - Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.
CY - Piscataway, NJ
T2 - 2019 IEEE International Conference on Imaging Systems and Techniques, IST 2019
Y2 - 8 December 2019 through 10 December 2019
ER -