To excel in today’s market, radiology groups must adopt ‘360-degree approach’ to gathering feedback

To excel in the drive toward value-based care, radiology groups must adopt a “360-degree approach” to gathering feedback, experts in the field charge. 

In the past, imaging departments may have focused solely on seeking criticism from patients or referrers. But members of the European Society of Radiology and its Value-based Radiology Subcommittee are urging members of the specialty to think more broadly.

This could include gathering feedback from others involved in medical imaging, including patients’ family members and caregivers, radiologic technologists, trainees, and hospital administrators. Understanding the full picture can help departments identify strengths and weaknesses, incorporate findings into practice, and improve patient safety and the user experience, experts detailed in Insights into Imaging.  

“The integration of comprehensive feedback mechanisms brings numerous benefits, including enhanced care, strengthened trust, and greater engagement with our stakeholders and service users,” Dr. Andrea Rockall, clinical chair of radiology at Imperial College London, and co-authors advised. “Feedback should be collected from a variety of stakeholders through a 360-degree approach, combining both systematically performed structured methods, like formal surveys, and unstructured methods, such as informal and opportunistic information gathering during multidisciplinary rounds.”

The article offers examples and guidance for how to gather feedback from various radiology stakeholders. Here are a few takeaways from each segment: 

Patients

Feedback can be gathered both from structured methods such as formal surveys, along with more casual approaches including “informal opportunistic information gathering” during multidisciplinary rounds. Radiology departments have utilized various means to gauge satisfaction both during and after the visit, with Rockall and colleagues urging others to use a “variety of options.” 

These can include verbal, paper-based and digital formats such as touch screens. Patient advisory groups could be one way to develop questions and identify areas in which feedback is warranted. 

“Internally designed surveys can be tailored to the specific needs of the practice and to previously identified areas of improvement, and offer room for free comments,” the authors advised. “Successful surveys need to consider the patient. For example, a long survey could be difficult to complete, or older patients could prefer a paper survey, whereas the younger patients would prefer an electronic survey. Additionally, surveys should be anonymized and solicited shortly after the interaction, ideally as a mandatory offer following each imaging interaction.”

Referrers

Conducting surveys using structured questionnaires is the “most immediate way” to obtain feedback from referring physicians. Previous polls have highlighted a range of concerns, the authors noted, including typos, lack of templates, accurate addressing of the clinical problem, and the urgent need for personal communication of results. 

One previous survey conducted in an emergency department emphasized the need for a standardized reporting structure. However, other healthcare settings might have differing needs. Radiologists also have complained that lack of accurate info in imaging requests can negatively impact their interpretation and potentially harm patient care.

“The implementation of structured feedback systems between clinicians and radiologists could potentially address these concerns,” the authors noted. “This iterative feedback loop could evaluate both the written radiology report and the adequacy of the clinical information provided by the referring physician. Although time-consuming for all participants, it is bound to improve the process for everyone involved.” 

Rad techs, residents and other colleagues

Gathering feedback from other stakeholders such as residents and rad techs is “essential for enhancing clinical practice and professional growth.” Peer review processes are one of the “cornerstones” of eliciting constructive criticism on their interpretations and reinforcing best practices. 

“This collaborative approach fosters a culture of continuous learning and excellence within radiology departments,” Rockall and colleagues wrote. “An important tool can be a regular meeting to anonymously review errors and misses, in a non-confrontational and anonymous format, with the value that the department can learn from these mistakes and find ways to reduce errors.”

Peer review is essential for residents, too, coupled with other regular feedback mechanisms such as case discussions, morbidity and mortality meetings and structured reporting audits. Teaching in the workplace also is a protective approach to burnout, the authors contend. Meanwhile, rad techs also can be reached through structured feedback systems, including formal evaluations and anonymous surveys. This can help to gather “comprehensive and honest feedback” from rad techs and other members of the imaging team. 

Hospital management

Finally, Rockall and co-authors urged radiology providers to design communication strategies that connect with hospital leadership. They emphasized the importance of establishing “two-way” channels of communication, so the two sides can share feedback with one another. 

Part of this process is sharing the feedback from patients, trainees, rad techs and others with leadership. Institution-wide yearly staff surveys can help test the mood of employees and identify areas of concern. These activities can be “critical in this time of severe workforce shortages,” the authors added. 

“One key role of the feedback received from patients and referrers is to influence and leverage requests for improving infrastructure and resources in the radiology department,” Rockall and co-authors advised. “This evidence can be a powerful tool to justify additional support,” they added later. “This can be supported by internal strategies to measure departmental workflow and efficiency, together with establishing quality and quantity indicators.”

ESR and its value-based radiology subcommittee said they hope to play a “pivotal role” in developing new tools and strategies to gather more feedback. They emphasized the importance of ensuring that is not done through one-off surveys and should, instead, be ongoing and ingrained in the institution. 

“To maximize the impact of feedback, it should be frequent and diverse, ensuring that all perspectives are considered,” the authors concluded. “Leaders in radiology must prioritize embedding a culture of feedback within their institutions, recognizing its crucial role in continuous improvement. It is essential to ensure that our departments consistently provide value to our most important stakeholders—the patients—but also to our referrers and trainees. By fostering an environment that values and acts upon feedback, we can achieve significant advancements in patient care and overall service quality in radiology.”