Improving the Quality of Care Through Routine Teleradiology Consultation

Published in: Academic Radiology, v. 7, no. 3, Mar. 2000, p. 149-155

Posted on on January 01, 2000

by Hooshang Kangarloo, Jose A. Valdez, Lawrence Yao, Sloan Chen, John Curran, Dana P. Goldman, Usha Sinha, John D. Dionisio, Ricky K. Taira, James Sayre, et al.

Read More

Access further information on this document at

This article was published outside of RAND. The full text of the article can be found at the link above.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The hypotheses of this study were as follows: (a) University subspecialty radiologists can provide consultations effectively to general radiologists as part of routine clinical operations; (b) these consultations will improve the quality of the final radiologic report; and (c) the consultations will improve the care process and may save money, as well. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For 2,012 consecutive computed tomographic or magnetic resonance (MR) imaging studies, the initial interpretations provided by radiology generalists were subsequently reviewed by specialists, with a final consensus report available. Truth was established by final consensus reports. To control for potential bias, 150 adult MR imaging and 250 pediatric radiologic studies were interpreted initially by specialists and then by generalists. Again, truth was established by final consensus reports. RESULTS: There was disagreement between generalist and specialist radiologist interpretations in 427 (21.2%) of the cases reviewed. These disagreements were stratified further by independent specialists, who graded them as important, very important, or unimportant. Differences were considered important or very important in 99% of the cases reviewed. CONCLUSION: Consultations by subspecialty radiologists improved the quality of the radiology reports studied and, at least in some cases, improved the process of care by eliminating unnecessary procedures or suggesting more specific follow-up examinations. The consultation services can be provided cost-effectively from the payer's perspective and may save additional costs when unnecessary procedures can be eliminated.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation External publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.

Our mission to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis is enabled through our core values of quality and objectivity and our unwavering commitment to the highest level of integrity and ethical behavior. To help ensure our research and analysis are rigorous, objective, and nonpartisan, we subject our research publications to a robust and exacting quality-assurance process; avoid both the appearance and reality of financial and other conflicts of interest through staff training, project screening, and a policy of mandatory disclosure; and pursue transparency in our research engagements through our commitment to the open publication of our research findings and recommendations, disclosure of the source of funding of published research, and policies to ensure intellectual independence. For more information, visit

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.