Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Practice Management”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 793 records · Page 44Linked to original sources
PubMed1994

Solo practice management: value of a computerized reporting system.

OBJECTIVE. A computerized reporting system based on keyed entry of acronyms and eponyms was developed to reduce transcription delays and speed report output for a solo radiology practice that covers several community hospitals in a large region. The purpose was to improve practice outcomes, quality assessments, continuing medical education, and billing efficiency. SYSTEM AND APPLICATIONS. Over a 10-year period, problems in accurate reporting, transcription delays, slowed report deliveries, and incomplete or lost billings were described to computer programmers. These programmers composed 31,000 lines of computer code designed to address the problems. The resultant program was applied to 100,000 imaging procedures. Entry of commonly used clinical acronyms, eponyms, and other symbol strings chosen by the interpreting radiologist triggered the immediate printing of a report's text at the radiologist's desk. After the reports were proofread, electronically authenticated, and/or hand signed, they were sent to distant locales by facsimile transmission. During new case interpretations, potentially erroneous statements of fact or judgement were prevented by enabling the interpreter to instantly review old reports, informative elements of a patient's history, and pertinent medical literature, all of which was placed in various caches of the computer's memory. Billing labor was reduced by automatically providing the number identifying each procedure and the diagnoses made during image interpretation. OPERATION. The acronym/eponym-based reporting system was time- and cost-effective. The new system reduced typing strokes by 84%, and reports were generated in 1 min, while the studies were being interpreted. With the retrieval and monitoring techniques operating on old, stored information, new reporting errors, as well as some diagnostic oversights, were reduced by 50%. Counting the acronyms and symbols representing imaging quality and technical problems showed an 11% mistake rate. Modem transmission of automatically included current procedural terms and disease classification numbers reduced billing labor by 50% and reduced lost charges to zero. The same messaging mechanism of the program sent the text of interpretations to remote clinics and hospitals a few minutes after the radiologist's interpretation was made. CONCLUSION. My experience suggests that a computerized reporting and messaging system based on acronyms and eponyms is a time- and cost-effective technique for managing a solo radiology practice. By using a programmable relational data base, one can modify the system to include educational, quality improvement, and billing functions.

Abbreviations as Topic↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Education for effective case management practice.

BACKGROUND: An internal needs assessment in a managed care organization identified the need for more effective case management and a more thorough orientation of new case managers. METHOD: An educational design and development consultant facilitated the process of planning and implementing activities to address those needs. One hundred fifteen employees attended one of five interactive educational sessions that covered key concepts critical to effective case management. RESULTS: Feedback from learners and from the managed care organization indicated that the activity was effective in meeting its targeted goals. CONCLUSION: The use of external facilitators combined with internal resources and implementation of active learning strategies was effective in promoting organizational improvement.

Case Management↗
PubMed2004

Practice management performance indicators in academic radiology departments.

PURPOSE: To determine the management performance indicators most frequently utilized in academic radiology departments in the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This investigation met the criteria for an exemption from institutional review board approval. A cross-sectional study in which a validated national survey was sent to members of the Society of Chairmen of Academic Radiology Departments (SCARD) was conducted. The survey was designed to examine the following six categories of 28 performance indicators: (a) general organization, (b) volume and productivity, (c) radiology reporting, (d) access to examinations, (e) customer satisfaction, and (f) finance. A total of 158 variables were included in the analysis. Summary statistics, the chi(2) test, rank correlation, multiple regression analysis, and analysis of variance were used. RESULTS: A response rate of 42% (55 of 132 SCARD members) was achieved. The mean number of performance indicators used by radiology departments was 16 +/- 6.35 (standard deviation). The most frequently utilized performance indicators were as follows: (a) productivity, in terms of examination volume (78% [43 departments]) and examination volume per modality (78% [43 departments]); (b) reporting, in terms of report turnaround (82% [45 departments]) and transcription time (71% [39 departments]); (c) access, in terms of appointment access to magnetic resonance imaging (80% [44 departments]); (d) satisfaction, in terms of number of patient complaints (84% [46 departments]); and (e) finance, in terms of expenses (67% [37 departments]). Regression analysis revealed that the numbers of performance indicators in each category were statistically significant in predicting the total number of performance indicators used (P < .001 for all). Numbers of productivity and financial indicators were moderately correlated (r = 0.51). However, there were no statistically significant correlations between the numbers of performance indicators used and hospital location, hospital size, or department size (P > .4 for all). CONCLUSION: Assessing departmental performance with a wide range of management indicators is not yet an established and standardized practice in academic radiology departments in the United States. Among all indicators, productivity indicators are the most frequently used.

Academic Medical Centers↗