Transitioning from a score-based review system to a new peer-learning platform can help cut costs while also boosting radiologist satisfaction.

That’s according to a new analysis out of the University of Chicago Medical Center, published in Clinical Imaging [1]. The common score-based model of radiology quality improvement typically focuses on individual error rates with little impact on performance or practice patterns, experts noted. As recommended by the Institute of Medicine, some radiology practices have moved to a model that emphasizes learning from errors via feedback, rather than a punitive response.

“Through group conferences that discuss anonymized cases of not only learning opportunities from diagnostic errors but also from ‘great calls’ (cases in which a radiologist performed well), all radiologists can be encouraged to participate in and aim to celebrate the learning process with the goal of delivering the highest standard of care,” lead author Daniel H. Kwak, MD, and his colleagues wrote Dec. 14.

To back their claim, researchers surveyed 27 radiologists at their single tertiary academic center before and after implementing peer learning. Of those, 70% preferred the new program versus nearly 26% who said they’d rather stick with the old approach. All positive impacts rated significantly higher for peer learning, Kwak et al. reported. Workflow disruptions, in particular, were rated significantly lower following the switch.

Time spent per month to complete peer learning exercises also dropped measurably. This resulted in nearly 1 hour of extra time per radiologist each month and over 11 hours per year, translating to an estimated direct salary time-cost saving of $1,653/radiologist/year and direct productivity time-cost saving of $3,469 when using the peer learning program.

“The significantly decreased perception of workflow disruption arising from the peer learning program corroborates the favorable calculated time-cost efficiency of the peer learning program,” the authors noted. “It would be expected that subsequent iterations of the current peer learning program will become more efficient over time with the goal of continuously enhancing quality assurance. Importantly, the transition from peer review to peer learning was a cost-neutral endeavor, as it required no new software and was seamlessly integrated into the existing PACS infrastructure by dedicated staff already available.”

Read more in Clinical Imaging, including details on this study's limitations, at the link below.