| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Health Policy and Practice |
1 From the Research Department, American College of Radiology, 1891 Preston White Dr, Reston, VA 20191. Received April 22, 1999; revision requested June 14; revision received July 14; accepted September 15. Address reprint requests to J.H.S. (e-mail: jonathans@acr.org).
PURPOSE: To measure diagnostic radiology groups' workload in physician work relative value units (RVUs) and identify factors affecting it.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 1996 and 1997, the authors surveyed diagnostic radiology and radiation oncology groups regarding finances, workload, and basic characteristics. The study was based on approximately 100 diagnostic radiology groups. The authors analyzed the distribution of workload in different categories of groups, conducting multiple statistical analyses.
RESULTS: The annual numbers of procedures were approximately 10%–15% lower than those in a comparison survey with a good response rate. The annual number of RVUs per full-time equivalent (FTE) diagnostic radiologist was highly variable in every group category, as was the number of RVUs per clinical work hour. Multivariate regression analysis indicated that variation in the annual number of hours worked did not explain variation in annual workload. RVUs per FTE radiologist were higher the greater the percentage of a group's workload from interventional, computed tomographic, and magnetic resonance imaging procedures.
CONCLUSION: Given the likely response bias, the annual workload per FTE radiologist probably averaged approximately 4,000 RVUs in academic groups and approximately 6,000 in nonacademic groups, but the large, unexplained variance means the average values should not be taken as norms.
Index terms: Radiology and radiologists • Radiology and radiologists, socioeconomic issues
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  S. Ondategui-Parra, J. G. Bhagwat, K. H. Zou, E. Nathanson, I. E. Gill, and P. R. Ros Use of Productivity and Financial Indicators for Monitoring Performance in Academic Radiology Departments: U.S. Nationwide Survey Radiology, July 1, 2005; 236(1): 214 - 219. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
I. F. Gareen and C. Gatsonis Primer on Multiple Regression Models for Diagnostic Imaging Research Radiology, November 1, 2003; 229(2): 305 - 310. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. Bhargavan and J. H. Sunshine Workload of Radiologists in the United States in 1998-1999 and Trends Since 1995-1996 Am. J. Roentgenol., November 1, 2002; 179(5): 1123 - 1128. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. M. Mitchell and J. H. Sunshine Determinants of Differences Among Radiologists in Starting Salaries Am. J. Roentgenol., May 1, 2002; 178(5): 1067 - 1073. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. H. Sunshine, Y. S. Cypel, and B. Schepps Diagnostic Radiologists in 2000: Basic Characteristics, Practices, and Issues Related to the Radiologist Shortage Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2002; 178(2): 291 - 301. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. H. Sunshine, J. H. Burkhardt, and M. R. Mabry Practice Costs in Diagnostic Radiology Radiology, March 1, 2001; 218(3): 854 - 865. [Abstract] [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. H. Sunshine and J. H. Burkhardt Radiology Groups' Workload Measured in Relative Value Units Radiology, February 1, 2001; 218(2): 602 - 602. [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. M. Conoley Productivity of Radiologists in 1997: Estimates Based on Analysis of Resource-Based Relative Value Units Am. J. Roentgenol., September 1, 2000; 175(3): 591 - 595. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. Berlin Liability of Interpreting Too Many Radiographs Am. J. Roentgenol., July 1, 2000; 175(1): 17 - 22. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
