Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Quantifying disruption of workflow by phone calls to the neuroradiology reading room
  1. Shyam Sabat,
  2. Paul Kalapos,
  3. Einat Slonimsky
  1. Penn State Health Milton S Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, Pennsylvania, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Einat Slonimsky; einatslow{at}gmail.com

Abstract

Introduction The purpose of this study was to understand the source and the reason for the phone calls to our neuroradiology suit and to quantify the size of the problem in terms of duration of individual and aggregated calls.

Materials and methods Observation of the neuroradiology reading room for the entire duration of the working hours over three non-consecutive days was performed, and included telephone calls start time, end time and calls duration for incoming telephone calls. After each phone call the recipients were queried on the details of the phone call; the origin of the call, the reason for the call and the response.

Results The average total number of minutes (min) spent on the phone each day was 64 min per working day with a total of 39 phone calls per day and 4.4 per hour on average. The trainees answered 71% of the phone calls with additional intervention by attending in 13% of phone calls. The most common source of phone calls was from either the MRI/CT technicians (48%), followed by providers (20%) and returning pages (18%).

Conclusion Cumulative time spent on the phone by neuroradiologists in the reading room ended up in more than an hour per working day, while trainees were taking the majority of phone calls. Most phone calls originated from technicians, hence, requiring specific solutions to mitigate this kind of interruption.

  • Healthcare quality improvement
  • Interruptions
  • Qualitative research
  • Communication
  • Duty Hours/Work hours

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Footnotes

  • Contributors SS: planning, data collection, manuscript editing. ES: data collection, statistical analysis, manuscript writing, submitting the manuscript. PK: manuscript writing.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.

  • Ethics approval This study protocol was reviewed and approved by the institutional review board.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Data availability statement Data are available on reasonable request. All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.