Find answers, ask questions, and connect with our community around the world.

  • Unknown Member

    Deleted User
    August 22, 2023 at 10:25 am

    “Otherwise, the MSK guys will claim that their worklist is longer than Neurorads and body imager complain that the Nucs guys have it better.”
     
    People worry about this, but if you really think about it, it doesn’t make sense when the alternative is a shared worklist and it is not an issue once assigned worklists are implemented well and tweaked over time. 
     
    Shared worklist:  read at whatever speed you want so long as you don’t raise any red flags among your partners that day and at the end of the month or end of year audit.  The difference in work done between the fastest readers and the slowest readers can be substantial with shared worklists.  If group morale is good and people trust each other, this is the most productive and best approach IMO.
     
    Assigned worklist: prevents cherry picking and large variations in productivity.   yes, some people will always complain because they think their own subspecialty is the hardest to read and should be given the most time. BUT, over time, you can – by looking at data from various subspecialty radiologists and including input from people in different subspecialties (and often group leadership does include people who read a variety of studies) – iron out major issues with the “conversion factor” e.g. how many screening mammograms in four hours vs. how many MSK in four hours” such that it’s reasonable albeit not perfect. Even the neuro guy who thinks the neuro rotation assignment is more than it should be and that the MSK guys have it easy – even he can appreciate the benefits that his colleague the other neuro guy who is a goddang slowpoke is now required to read the same number of neuro MRs as him when on that rotation.
     
    “Reasonable but not perfect” is infinitely better than it being the Wild West of letting the individual radiologist decide how much they want to read a given day.