{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,4,22]],"date-time":"2026-04-22T17:03:17Z","timestamp":1776877397673,"version":"3.51.2"},"reference-count":7,"publisher":"Springer Science and Business Media LLC","issue":"2","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2025,6,24]],"date-time":"2025-06-24T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1750723200000},"content-version":"tdm","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0"},{"start":{"date-parts":[[2025,6,24]],"date-time":"2025-06-24T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1750723200000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0"}],"content-domain":{"domain":["link.springer.com"],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["J Digit Imaging. Inform. med."],"abstract":"<jats:title>Abstract<\/jats:title>\n                  <jats:p>\n                    Second opinions in radiology are crucial for accurate diagnosis and patient management but often lack standardization, leading to inefficiencies and suboptimal reimbursement. We redesigned the second opinion workflow leveraging existing tools in the EMR. Summary statistics as well as post-implementation surveys were conducted among ordering providers and radiologists to gauge the process. Reimbursement data from August 2021 to October 2022 was also analyzed. The Abdomen division accounted for 47% of second opinion exams, followed by Neuroradiology at 26%, Chest at 17%, Nuclear Medicine at 9%, and MSK at 1%. CT scans comprised 64%, MR 26%, NM 9%, and US 1%. Survey participants reported an improvement in user-friendliness ratings for the second opinion process from 2 to 4.4 (\n                    <jats:italic>p<\/jats:italic>\n                    \u2009&lt;\u20090.07), with substantial positive trends among ordering providers (Cohen\u2019s\n                    <jats:italic>d<\/jats:italic>\n                    \u2009=\u20092.00). Satisfaction with perceived timeliness of report availability was high across both groups, and radiologists perceived workflow efficiency improved from 2.7 to 4 (\n                    <jats:italic>p<\/jats:italic>\n                    \u2009=\u20090.036). The new workflow achieved a 91.9% collection success rate. Standardizing the second opinion workflow enhances operational efficiency, user satisfaction and reimbursement, thereby improving patient care.\n                  <\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.1007\/s10278-025-01572-w","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2025,6,24]],"date-time":"2025-06-24T15:42:08Z","timestamp":1750779728000},"page":"1094-1099","update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/springer_crossmark_policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":0,"title":["Standardizing Workflow, Patient Care, and Reimbursement for Radiology Second Opinions"],"prefix":"10.1007","volume":"39","author":[{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0002-9822-2175","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Akhil","family":"Dhamija","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Matthew","family":"Crain","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Mohammed","family":"Ismail","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Clayton R.","family":"Taylor","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Luciano M.","family":"Prevedello","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Hillary M.","family":"Kummer","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Daria","family":"Blanton","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Robin","family":"Weppler","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Pari V.","family":"Pandharipande","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Zarine K.","family":"Shah","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]}],"member":"297","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2025,6,24]]},"reference":[{"issue":"1","key":"1572_CR1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"145","DOI":"10.2214\/AJR.19.21805","volume":"214","author":"MJ Khoshpouri","year":"2020","unstructured":"Khoshpouri MJ, Ward CE, Chhabra A et al (2020) Second opinion consultations in academic radiology departments: current practices and medicolegal considerations. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 214(1):145\u2013147. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.2214\/AJR.19.21805","journal-title":"AJR Am J Roentgenol."},{"issue":"4","key":"1572_CR2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"552","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jacr.2021.12.005","volume":"19","author":"CM Tuite","year":"2022","unstructured":"Tuite CM, Boros MC, Ruth K (2022) Value of second-opinion interpretation of outside-facility breast imaging studies to a radiology department and cancer center. J Am Coll Radiol. 19(4):552\u2013560. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.jacr.2021.12.005","journal-title":"J Am Coll Radiol."},{"issue":"3","key":"1572_CR3","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"187","DOI":"10.1007\/s10140-011-1016-x","volume":"19","author":"AB Jeffers","year":"2012","unstructured":"Jeffers AB, Saghir A, Camacho M (2012) Formal reporting of second-opinion CT interpretation: experience and reimbursement in the emergency department setting. Emerg Radiol. 19(3):187\u201393. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s10140-011-1016-x","journal-title":"Emerg Radiol."},{"issue":"1","key":"1572_CR4","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"93","DOI":"10.1007\/s10140-022-02107-4","volume":"30","author":"JD Robinson","year":"2023","unstructured":"Robinson JD, Dahl A (2023) Transfer patient imaging: secondary interpretation reimbursement. Emerg Radiol. 30(1):93\u201397. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s10140-022-02107-4","journal-title":"Emerg Radiol."},{"issue":"2","key":"1572_CR5","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"172","DOI":"10.1053\/j.ro.2022.01.001","volume":"57","author":"CM Tuite","year":"2022","unstructured":"Tuite CM (2022) Second opinion interpretation of outside facility breast imaging studies: work effort, value, liability, and reimbursement considerations. Semin Roentgenol. 57(2):172\u2013175. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1053\/j.ro.2022.01.001","journal-title":"Semin Roentgenol."},{"key":"1572_CR6","unstructured":"American Board of Radiology. 2024 Noninterpretive Skills Study Guide. https:\/\/www.theabr.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/2024-NIS-Study-Guide.pdf. Published January 2024. Accessed August 30, 2024."},{"issue":"11","key":"1572_CR7","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1547","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jacr.2021.07.002","volume":"18","author":"SP Doyle","year":"2021","unstructured":"Doyle SP, Duszak R Jr, Heilbrun ME, Saindane AM, Sadigh G (2021) Secondary Interpretations of Diagnostic Imaging Examinations: Patient Liabilities and Out-of-Pocket Costs. J Am Coll Radiol. 18(11):1547\u20131555. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.jacr.2021.07.002","journal-title":"J Am Coll Radiol."}],"container-title":["Journal of Imaging Informatics in Medicine"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/content\/pdf\/10.1007\/s10278-025-01572-w.pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/article\/10.1007\/s10278-025-01572-w","content-type":"text\/html","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/content\/pdf\/10.1007\/s10278-025-01572-w.pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2026,4,22]],"date-time":"2026-04-22T16:24:20Z","timestamp":1776875060000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/10.1007\/s10278-025-01572-w"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2025,6,24]]},"references-count":7,"journal-issue":{"issue":"2","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2026,4]]}},"alternative-id":["1572"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s10278-025-01572-w","relation":{},"ISSN":["2948-2933"],"issn-type":[{"value":"2948-2933","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2025,6,24]]},"assertion":[{"value":"28 January 2025","order":1,"name":"received","label":"Received","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"value":"28 May 2025","order":2,"name":"revised","label":"Revised","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"value":"29 May 2025","order":3,"name":"accepted","label":"Accepted","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"value":"24 June 2025","order":4,"name":"first_online","label":"First Online","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"order":1,"name":"Ethics","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Declarations"}},{"value":"This manuscript represents a systems implementation. No ethics approval is required.","order":2,"name":"Ethics","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Ethics Approval"}},{"value":"The authors declare no competing interests.","order":3,"name":"Ethics","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Competing interests"}}]}}