Seconds that matter: the hidden burden of vetting times on radiology workflow

IF 2 3区医学 Q2 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING

Clinical radiology Pub Date : 2026-03-01 Epub Date: 2026-01-09 DOI:10.1016/j.crad.2026.107251

M. Jafari , M.S. Kashthuri , Z.Y. Wong , R. Sinha

{"title":"Seconds that matter: the hidden burden of vetting times on radiology workflow","authors":"M. Jafari , M.S. Kashthuri , Z.Y. Wong , R. Sinha","doi":"10.1016/j.crad.2026.107251","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>AIM</h3><div>Vetting is an essential but often overlooked step in radiology workflow. No published data exist on time spent vetting in National Health Service radiology departments. This study aims to quantify vetting times, examine variation by professional role, outcome, modality and referral source and explores the relationship of vetting outcome to professional role and referral source.</div></div><div><h3>MATERIALS AND METHODS</h3><div>Between April and August 2025, 344 vetting episodes in two tertiary hospitals in the North East and North Cumbria Imaging Network were prospectively observed. Time taken to vet, professional role of the vetter, outcome, referral source, and modality were recorded.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The median vetting time was 31 seconds (IQR: 44.5; range: 4-347). Residents spent the longest time per request (61s, IQR: 79). Vetting times were similar for radiographers/sonographers (30s, IQR: 36) and consultant radiologists (28.5s, IQR: 39). Approved requests were processed fastest (median: 33s) and cancelled requests took longest (71s). Vetting times differed across modalities (H = 91.50, df (5), <em>P</em><.001), longest for computed tomography (42s) and nuclear medicine (39s), and shortest for ultrasound (11s). Referral source influenced vetting time: musculoskeletal interface clinic were quickest (14s), whereas hospital referral was slowest (44s).</div><div>Vetting outcomes differed by role (X<sup>2</sup>(4, N=344) = 34.15, <em>P</em><.001), with residents approving most requests. Outcomes were similar between consultants and radiographers/sonographers (X<sup>2</sup>(2, N=278) = 4.46, <em>P</em>=.11). Approval rates varied by referrals source (X<sup>2</sup>(8, N=344) = 106.93, <em>P</em><.001)—lowest for general practice (GP) (62 %) and highest for accident and emergency (100 %).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Vetting consumes a substantial amount of time and resources. Quantifying and understanding vetting time are vital for workforce planning and optimising departmental efficiency.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":10695,"journal":{"name":"Clinical radiology","volume":"94 ","pages":"Article 107251"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0009926026000279","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

AIM

Vetting is an essential but often overlooked step in radiology workflow. No published data exist on time spent vetting in National Health Service radiology departments. This study aims to quantify vetting times, examine variation by professional role, outcome, modality and referral source and explores the relationship of vetting outcome to professional role and referral source.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between April and August 2025, 344 vetting episodes in two tertiary hospitals in the North East and North Cumbria Imaging Network were prospectively observed. Time taken to vet, professional role of the vetter, outcome, referral source, and modality were recorded.

Results

The median vetting time was 31 seconds (IQR: 44.5; range: 4-347). Residents spent the longest time per request (61s, IQR: 79). Vetting times were similar for radiographers/sonographers (30s, IQR: 36) and consultant radiologists (28.5s, IQR: 39). Approved requests were processed fastest (median: 33s) and cancelled requests took longest (71s). Vetting times differed across modalities (H = 91.50, df (5), P<.001), longest for computed tomography (42s) and nuclear medicine (39s), and shortest for ultrasound (11s). Referral source influenced vetting time: musculoskeletal interface clinic were quickest (14s), whereas hospital referral was slowest (44s).

Vetting outcomes differed by role (X²(4, N=344) = 34.15, P<.001), with residents approving most requests. Outcomes were similar between consultants and radiographers/sonographers (X²(2, N=278) = 4.46, P=.11). Approval rates varied by referrals source (X²(8, N=344) = 106.93, P<.001)—lowest for general practice (GP) (62 %) and highest for accident and emergency (100 %).

Conclusion

Vetting consumes a substantial amount of time and resources. Quantifying and understanding vetting time are vital for workforce planning and optimising departmental efficiency.

查看原文本刊更多论文

重要的秒数：放射学工作流程中审查时间的隐性负担。

目的：审查是一个必不可少的，但往往忽视放射工作流程的步骤。没有关于国家卫生服务放射科审查时间的公开数据。本研究旨在量化审查时间，检视不同职业角色、结果、方式和转介来源的差异，并探讨审查结果与职业角色和转介来源的关系。材料与方法：前瞻性观察2025年4月至8月在东北和北坎布里亚影像网络两家三级医院的344例审查事件。记录审查时间、审查者的专业角色、结果、转诊来源和方式。结果：中位审查时间为31秒（IQR: 44.5；范围：4-347）。居民每次请求花费的时间最长（61秒，IQR: 79）。放射技师/超音波技师（30秒，IQR: 36）及放射科顾问医师（28.5秒，IQR: 39）的审查时间相似。批准的请求处理速度最快（中位数：33秒），取消的请求处理时间最长（71秒）。不同模式的审查时间不同(H = 91.50, df (5), P2（4， N=344) = 34.15, P2(2， N=278) = 4.46， P= 0.11）。不同来源的审批率存在差异（X2(8， N=344) = 106.93, p）结论：审批率的提高耗费了大量的时间和资源。量化和了解审核时间对于人力资源规划和优化部门效率至关重要。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Clinical radiology 医学-核医学

CiteScore

4.70

自引率

3.80%

发文量

528

审稿时长

76 days

期刊介绍： Clinical Radiology is published by Elsevier on behalf of The Royal College of Radiologists. Clinical Radiology is an International Journal bringing you original research, editorials and review articles on all aspects of diagnostic imaging, including: • Computed tomography • Magnetic resonance imaging • Ultrasonography • Digital radiology • Interventional radiology • Radiography • Nuclear medicine Papers on radiological protection, quality assurance, audit in radiology and matters relating to radiological training and education are also included. In addition, each issue contains correspondence, book reviews and notices of forthcoming events.