What is the appropriate measure of radiology workload: Study or image numbers?

• Published in: Journal of medical imaging and radiation oncology 2024-08, Vol.68 (5), p.530-539
• Main Authors: Troupis, Christopher John, Knight, Richard Alexander Hyde, Lau, Kenneth Kwok‐Pan
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Australia; burnout; Communications systems; Computed tomography; Correlation coefficients; Diagnostic Imaging; Diagnostic systems; Equivalence; Health care; Humans; Medical imaging; picture archiving and communication system; productivity; radiology; Radiology Department, Hospital; Radiology Information Systems; Victoria; Workload; Workloads
• ISSN: 1754-9477; 1754-9485; 1754-9485
• DOI: 10.1111/1754-9485.13713

Introduction Previous studies assessing the volume of radiological studies rarely considered the corresponding number of images. We aimed to quantify the increases in study and image numbers per radiologist in a tertiary healthcare network to better understand the demands on imaging services. Methods Using the Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS), the number of images per study was obtained for all diagnostic studies reported by in‐house radiologists at a tertiary healthcare network in Melbourne, Australia, between January 2009 and December 2022. Payroll data was used to obtain the numbers of full‐time equivalent radiologists. Results Across all modalities, there were 4,462,702 diagnostic studies and 1,116,311,209 images. The number of monthly studies increased from 17,235 to 35,152 (104%) over the study period. The number of monthly images increased from 1,120,832 to 13,353,056 (1091%), with computed tomography (CT) showing the greatest absolute increase of 9,395,653 images per month (1476%). There was no increase in the monthly studies per full‐time equivalent radiologist; however, the number of monthly image slices per radiologist increased 399%, from 48,781 to 243,518 (Kendall Tau correlation coefficient 0.830, P‐value