TABLE OF CONTENTS
- Report Purpose
- Navigating the Report
- Report Features
- Using the Report to Monitor Performance
The GRID Facility Comparisons Report is an interactive report that allows you to benchmark radiology turnaround time performance against peer facilities. Benchmark comparisons among facilities under the same NRDR Corporate Account can also be observed. The GRID reports can help participants identify areas for improvement and track quality improvement efforts over time. Updated weekly, the report also provides performance insight for facilities reporting turnaround time measures for the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS).
Navigating the Report
Log into the National Radiology Data Registry (NRDR) portal and select the GRID Facility Comparisons Report in the left menu. The report is divided into tabs across the top of the screen. The About this Report tab provides a general overview of the information displayed across all report tabs. In each report tab, hover your pointer over the information icon (blue circle) in the upper left corner to learn more about navigating the report's features.
The Facilities Map provides a visual representation of which facilities are included in the report's Census Region comparison statistics for a selected year. Each region is color coded.
The Facility Characteristics tab displays the number of sites by Facility Type, Location Type, and Census Region. As shown in the table below, each stacked bar chart denotes the number of sites that met the case-inclusion threshold for the year (blue bars), and the number of sites that fell below the threshold (gray bars).
Facility Peer Comparisons
The Facility Peer Comparisons report displays the median turnaround time performance compared with peer facilities of the same region, facility type, and location as well as against the entire registry. The report filters allow users to view comparisons by one or more modalities, place of service details, and the number of radiologists who have interpreted the exam. The table provides a visual (see gray bars) of the number of exams performed and the corresponding median turnaround time.
By hovering over a blue dot, users can see a facility's ranking compared to the peer group presented in quartiles. For example, the highest 25% quartile group typically indicates the facility performed well and was better than 75% of all sites in that group, and the lower 25% indicates the facility performance was relatively poor, faring worse than 75% of all sites in the group.
Note: Submitting Place of Service data provides more insight into performance and better helps to identify opportunities for improvement.
The Annual Trends tab provides a view of turnaround time performance over time for the selected facility compared to GRID facilities meeting the case threshold. Click on a modality name in the table to display the performance trend chart. The line chart compares the facility’s rate (green line) to the registry median (gray line), for each available year.
Note that turnaround time is an inverse measure so that facilities with the highest turnaround times are ranked in the lowest 25% of facilities in the registry and, conversely, facilities with the lowest turnaround times are ranked in the highest quartile.
The Facility Comparisons tab displays performance rankings for multiple facilities affiliated with a Corporate Account, allowing comparison across facilities. The example below shows comparisons across three facilities including Place of Service detail and a Registry Grand Total comparison. A blank cell indicates too little data are available for comparison. Hover over the center of the cell to see more details.
The Registry Comparisons tab displays performance rankings for a single facility or multiple facilities against the registry. The turnaround time rankings are presented in deciles, similar to the approach used for the reporting of MIPS measures for the CMS Quality Payment Program. Each circle represents how well the facility ranked against all sites in the registry. Rankings are calculated by comparing the facility's average turnaround time with the deciles for all sites in the comparison data set. Deciles are displayed in the report in order from worst to best. For example:
Average turnaround times greater than the Registry 10th percentile rank in the bottom 10% of all sites in the registry (Decile 1)
Average turnaround times falling between the Registry Median (50th percentile) and 60th percentile rank in the top 40-50% (Decile 6)
Average turnaround times less than the Registry 90th percentile are in the top 10% of all sites (Decile 10)