Measuring echo review handoff
EchoReview connects available studies, cardiologist review, and documented sign-off. A hospital evaluation should test whether that workflow helps at the site; no turnaround gain has been established.
Start with the facility’s baseline
Record acquisition, delivery, first review, and sign-off times. Document missing images, reader availability, and follow-up work. Delays and their causes vary by site; do not assume a 48–96 hour baseline or a same-shift outcome.
Evaluate the handoff, not an AI diagnosis
Assess permitted study delivery, available views and clips, reviewer assignment, independent interpretations, and correction records. A sampled clip is not necessarily a complete exam. Clinical urgency follows the hospital’s existing escalation process; AI must not prioritize patients.
Keep the AI boundary explicit
AI is in development and research-only. Exploratory blinded tests did not establish reliable automated grading. Current research uploads can trigger hosted AI analysis, show findings, and pre-fill drafts. An approved AI-free data flow must be established before a hospital patient-data pilot. Routine review is not blinded by default.
Obtain approvals before data moves
Confirm permitted data, required agreements, provider coverage, privacy and security evidence, reader credentials, and site-tested image delivery. Inspect burned-in text, metadata, filenames, reference fields, and notes; metadata stripping is not a no-PHI guarantee. The institution determines research / QI review and consent requirements.
Report measured results and limitations
Compare arrival-to-sign time, completeness, failed deliveries, workload, and costs with the agreed baseline. Record incidents and missing evidence. No clinical benefit, response time, financial return, regulatory status, or liability protection should be inferred from a workflow demonstration.