Integration challenges may hinder trust in radiology decision support tools
Radiology decision support tools were developed with the intention of improving imaging workflows, but new data suggest that implementing these tools is often a process—one that does not always unfold smoothly.
These software-based support tools are integrated into workflows to help providers make more informed decisions. They're meant to ensure exam appropriateness, help expedite the process of completing said exams and assist radiologists in identifying suspicious findings. Though they were designed to be helpful, the process of integrating them into workflows can be challenging.
A new paper details the opinions of a group of medical and administrative professionals regarding their experiences with implementing decision support software at their organization. Responses suggest that many involved in the process have had frustrating experiences.
“These decision support solutions show promising clinical validity compared to standard practice conditions,” Sundresan Naicker, PhD, with the Australian Center for Health Services Innovation, noted. “However, their implementation over time and implications on radiologists’ practice are poorly understood.”
To gauge how integrating support software affects staff involved in radiology workflows, experts interviewed a group comprised of radiology consultants, registrars and radiographers within a CT department. The interviews were conducted at three different time points—pre-, mid- and post-implementation. There were 43 participants interviewed.
The responses uncovered a slew of barriers staff members faced before, during and even after implementing the software. Pre-implementation, organizational barriers presented the most challenges, while technical issues, such as system accuracy, interoperability and information overload, hindered the rollout phase and post-implementation months.
Staff members frequently alluded to a lack of trust in the system, which affected their willingness to use it post-implementation. This was rooted in its initially inconsistent performance, weak communication among relevant co-workers, providers and administrative personnel, and uncertainty regarding the potential for medicolegal issues—lessons the authors believe other organizations can learn from.
“Weak planning and limited feedback structures (organizational barriers) amplified adopter frustrations with false positives, information clutter, and interoperability issues (technology barriers), eroding trust (adopter-level barriers),” the team noted. “Even when technical faults were later mitigated, these initial experiences limited or constrained uptake, illustrating how early technical and communication failures created enduring impressions that shaped subsequent patterns of trust and tool use.”
Their findings suggest integrating support tools “is as much an organizational and cultural process as a technological one,” the authors added, which should be taken into consideration by organizations interested in similar systems.
Read more here.
In addition to her background in journalism, Hannah also has patient-facing experience in clinical settings, having spent more than 12 years working as a registered rad tech. She began covering the medical imaging industry for Innovate Healthcare in 2021.