Radiologist questions the benefit of sharing online ratings of rads without ‘guidelines and guardrails’

A radiologist is questioning the benefit of sharing online ratings of rads without establishing clear “guidelines and guardrails.”

Julianna Czum, MD, of Johns Hopkins Medicine, made her case in the American Journal of Roentgenology [1] on Wednesday. Her institution has implemented a systemwide program to publicly share survey data on patient-facing physicians who have received at least 30 survey responses in the past year.

However, diagnostic radiologists rarely interact with patients and, more commonly, communication occurs with technologists or reception staff. In rare instance, a diagnostic expert may speak with an individual after a contrast reaction, occurring during a day when they might interpret over 100 imaging exams. Czum, a DR herself, wondered whether the physicians who order the exams should be the ones completing satisfaction surveys.

“Regardless of whether referrers and/or patients should rate and comment on radiology reports (and if so, then also cardiologists’ echocardiogram reports, pulmonologists’ pulmonary function testing reports, etc.), organizations should create, test, validate and modify survey questions that generate meaningful data via small pilot programs before large-scale public data-sharing,” Czum charged. “During this initial phase, data could be used for internal quality assurance and performance improvement. However, without clear guidelines (e.g., what are survey questions measuring and are those measures meaningful) and built-in guardrails (e.g., what are potential negative consequences and how are they avoided), we won’t know if we’ll achieve insight into what makes for a high-quality radiologist in patient’s eyes, especially when consensus, even among experts, may be elusive.”

Radiologists Yoshimi Anzai, MD, and Troy Hutchins, MD, argued for the counterpoint in a second opinion piece published Wednesday in AJR [1]. The University of Utah Health physicians acknowledged that most diagnostic specialists are “invisible to patients.” A 2015 study found that, out of 6,775 physicians rated on a popular website, only about 0.4% were radiologists.

“Consistent with the specialty’s increasing priority on patient- and family-centered care, diagnostic radiologists must be more visible to patients. We explain why such visibility is important for our profession’s future,” the two wrote.

Anzai and Hutchins went on to cite four reasons to support their claim: (1) online reviews of goods and services are unavoidable in the current era of consumerism. (2) Radiology services and radiologists are at risk of commoditization, which is heightened by the rapid integration of AI. (3) Radiologists’ visibility to patients enhances perceptions of the specialty’s value, thereby strengthening departments within health systems. (4) Speaking to patients may give radiologists more joy and fulfillment in their work.

“In summary, online patient reviews of diagnostic radiologists present a unique opportunity,” the piece concluded. “Whether we like it or not, the wave of consumerism will reach diagnostic radiologists soon. Let’s get ready,” they added later.

Read the rest in AJR at the links below.