Use of productivity and financial indicators for monitoring performance in academic radiology departments: U.S. nationwide survey.

PURPOSE To determine how productivity- and finance-related indicators are used by radiology departments to evaluate departmental performance. MATERIALS AND METHODS The study met the criteria to be exempt from institutional review board approval. All subjects were informed of the purpose of the study and that their questionnaire responses would be kept confidential. For the study, a survey was sent to 132 members of the Society of Chairmen of Academic Radiology Departments (SCARD) nationwide. The survey was designed to (a) assess organizational information about hospital and radiology departments, (b) determine the types and mean numbers of productivity and financial indicators used by radiology departments, (c) determine how these indicators are used to influence departmental productivity, and (d) assess the reference-standard goals with which each indicator value was compared. A total of 77 variables were studied. Summary statistics, Spearman rank correlation coefficient, and chi2 analyses were performed. RESULTS The response rate was 42% (55 of 132 surveyed SCARD members). The mean number of productivity indicators used by radiology departments was 4.55 +/- 2.56 (standard deviation), while the mean number of financial indicators used was 2.89 +/- 1.99. Twenty-two (40%) of the 55 responding departments used productivity indicators to monitor and provide feedback to radiologists, hospital leaders, and technical staff members for improved productivity, but only 11 (20%) departments used these indicators to compare personnel performances against specific productivity standards. The most frequent goal (of seven [13%] responding departments) of using the indicators was to increase the examination volume from the previous year by 5%-10%. CONCLUSION Academic radiology departments across the United States do not use a standardized set of productivity and financial indicators to measure departmental performance. Examination volume is the most frequently used productivity indicator, whereas general expenses are commonly used as indicators of financial status.

[1]  P. Conoley.  Productivity of radiologists in 1997: estimates based on analysis of resource-based relative value units. , 2000, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[2]  J. Oliveira,et al.  The balanced scorecard: an integrative approach to performance evaluation. , 2001, Healthcare financial management : journal of the Healthcare Financial Management Association.

[3]  W N Zelman,et al.  Issues for academic health centers to consider before implementing a balanced-scorecard effort. , 1999, Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges.

[4]  R. Gunderman,et al.  Should pay in radiology be tied to productivity? The case against. , 2002, Academic radiology.

[5]  Jonathan H Sunshine,et al.  Financial ratios in diagnostic radiology practices: variability and trends. , 2004, Radiology.

[6]  R L Arenson,et al.  Measuring the academic radiologist's clinical productivity: survey results for subspecialty sections. , 2001, Academic radiology.

[7]  B. Hillman,et al.  Radiology 2012: radiology and radiologists a decade hence--a strategic analysis for radiology from the second annual American College of Radiology FORUM. , 2003, Radiology.

[8]  V R Devan,et al.  Measuring up. Benchmarking tools can enhance executive performance. , 1999, Trustee : the journal for hospital governing boards.

[9]  Radiology groups' workload in relative value units and factors affecting it. , 2000, Radiology.

[10]  D Zimmerman,et al.  Benchmarking: measuring yourself against the best. , 1999, Trustee : the journal for hospital governing boards.

[11]  H L Paz,et al.  Using a benchmarking system to improve patient care and assist in technology assessment. , 1996, Physician executive.

[12]  Pablo R Ros,et al.  Practice management performance indicators in academic radiology departments. , 2004, Radiology.