Eliot Lawrence Siegel MD, Abstract Co-Author: Nothing to Disclose

Khan Mohammad Siddiqui MD, Abstract Co-Author: Nothing to Disclose

Bruce Ian Reiner MD, Abstract Co-Author: Nothing to Disclose

Amy Elizabeth Musk MD, Presenter: Nothing to Disclose

Ryan Moffitt, Abstract Co-Author: Nothing to Disclose

Steve Severance, Abstract Co-Author: Nothing to Disclose

The purpose of this study was to utilize specially developed workstation auditing tools to analyze the interpretation process of thoracic and general radiologistsSoftware was developed to “audit” all workstation activities including specific keystrokes, mouse movements and mouse clicks. After review of training cases, eight radiologists with varying degrees of experience with the use of a 3D/multiplanar workstation were asked to interpret 15 CT examinations of the thorax. Each of the radiologists had the ability to utilize any one of four windows during the interpretation process; axial, sagittal, coronal, and 3D and to select the optimal slice thickness during image interpretation. The resulting data were analyzed using specially developed software.The average interpretation time for CT studies of the thorax was 6 minutes and 19 seconds (6:19). Thoracic radiologists required less time than general radiologists (5:52 vs. 8:26). Thoracic radiologists used thinner slices for interpretation (mean approximately 4 mm) in comparison to general radiologists (mean approximately 5 mm). Chest radiologists had a strong preference for the axial plane in comparison to general radiologists (98.7% vs. 81.9%). Images were reviewed in the coronal plane more than the sagittal plane by a factor of approximately 3:1. While almost 100% of the axial sections were reviewed only 41% of the coronal images were reviewed when that plane was chosen and only 26% of the sagittal plane. Radiologists reviewed images in stack mode at approximately 7 images per second. Thoracic radiologists reviewed the axial images much more rapidly (8.8 images per second) than did the general radiologists (4.7 per second), and reviewed the coronal images 2:1 faster and the sagittal approximately 1.5 times faster than the general radiologists. Overall, radiologists routinely chose to review 39% of all cases on the 3D/multiplanar workstation. The use of 3D/multiplanar and even routine image review can be automatically documented using workstation auditing tools. This has major implications for the development of future intelligent 3D-multiplanar workstations.

1.Describe the potential benefits of radiologist workstation auditing tools on workstation design, workflow analysis and re-engineering2.Understand the differences between thoracic radiologists and general radiologists in the interpretation of thoracic CT exams3.List workstation parameters that can be effectively monitored using auditing tools

Siegel, E, Siddiqui, K, Reiner, B, Musk, A, Moffitt, R, Severance, S, The Use of Workstation Auditing Tools to Determine How 3D/Multiplanar Workstations Are Used in the Routine Interpretation of CT of the Thorax.  Radiological Society of North America 2004 Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting, November 28 - December 3, 2004 ,Chicago IL. http://archive.rsna.org/2004/4416719.html