Literature DB >> 11517050

Patient expectations and costs of immediate reporting of screening mammography: talk isn't cheap.

S Raza1, M P Rosen, K Chorny, T S Mehta, C A Hulka, J K Baum.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to determine whether patients prefer immediate or delayed results of screening mammography and to determine the cost of immediate reporting at our institution.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A survey was anonymously and randomly distributed to 129 women who were 35-70 years old during a visit to their primary care physician, asking the women's preference for receiving mammography results by one of two systems: by letter with a return visit for any additional tests; or by speaking at once with the radiologist, with the option of additional tests being performed during the same visit. Patients' willingness to pay for the latter service was also determined. A cost identification model was constructed using commercially available software. We considered the impact on radiologists' and technologists' time and the need for additional equipment and space, and we analyzed the effect on the cost of immediate reporting.
RESULTS: One hundred twenty (93%) surveys were completed. Eighty women (67%) preferred immediate reporting, and 62 (78%) of these 80 patients would wait 30-60 min. The additional cost of immediate reporting is $28.22 per patient. Only 11% of patients were willing to pay this additional cost. When new equipment and space were not required, the cost would increase by $4.38. This cost was most influenced by the time required to give patients normal results.
CONCLUSION: Most surveyed patients preferred speaking with a radiologist immediately but were unwilling to pay additional fees. Radiologists, hospital administrators, and health care planners must be aware of the costs of immediate reporting and must factor these costs into any change in hospital or national policy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11517050     DOI: 10.2214/ajr.177.3.1770579

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   3.959


  6 in total

1.  Urban women's preferences for learning of their mammogram result: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Erin N Marcus; Darlene Drummond; Noella Dietz
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 2.037

2.  Reviewing imaging examination results with a radiologist immediately after study completion: patient preferences and assessment of feasibility in an academic department.

Authors:  Jay Pahade; Corey Couto; Roger B Davis; Payal Patel; Bettina Siewert; Max P Rosen
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 3.959

3.  Adjunctive self-hypnotic relaxation for outpatient medical procedures: a prospective randomized trial with women undergoing large core breast biopsy.

Authors:  Elvira V Lang; Kevin S Berbaum; Salomao Faintuch; Olga Hatsiopoulou; Noami Halsey; Xinyu Li; Michael L Berbaum; Eleanor Laser; Janet Baum
Journal:  Pain       Date:  2006-09-07       Impact factor: 6.961

4.  How do breast imaging centers communicate results to women with limited English proficiency and other barriers to care?

Authors:  Erin N Marcus; Tulay Koru-Sengul; Feng Miao; Monica Yepes; Lee Sanders
Journal:  J Immigr Minor Health       Date:  2014-06

5.  An assessment of the likelihood, frequency, and content of verbal communication between radiologists and women receiving screening and diagnostic mammography.

Authors:  Patricia A Carney; Mark Kettler; Andrea J Cook; Berta M Geller; Leah Karliner; Diana L Miglioretti; Erin Aiello Bowles; Diana S Buist; Thomas H Gallagher; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2009-05-12       Impact factor: 3.173

6.  How often do patients ask for the results of their radiological studies?

Authors:  Enrico Capaccio; Andrea Podestà; Daniele Morcaldi; Maria Pia Sormani; Lorenzo Egildo Derchi
Journal:  Insights Imaging       Date:  2010-01-28
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.