Literature DB >> 17325070

Does radiologist recommendation for follow-up with the same imaging modality contribute substantially to high-cost imaging volume?

Susanna I Lee1, Anuradha Saokar, Keith J Dreyer, Jeffrey B Weilburg, James H Thrall, Peter F Hahn.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To retrospectively measure repeat rates for high-cost imaging studies, determining their causes and trends, and the impact of radiologist recommendations for a repeat examination on imaging volume.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This HIPAA-compliant study had institutional review board approval, with waiver of informed consent. Repeat examination was defined as a same-modality examination performed in the same patient within 0 days to 7 months of a first examination. From a database of all radiology examinations (>2.9 million) at one institution from May 1996 to June 2003, a computerized search identified head, spine, chest, and abdominal computed tomographic (CT), brain and spine magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, pelvic ultrasonography (US), and nuclear cardiology examinations with a prior examination of the same type within 7 months. Examination pairs were subdivided into studies repeated at less than 2 weeks, between 2 weeks and 2 months, or between 2 and 7 months. Automated classification of radiology reports revealed whether a repeat examination from June 2002 to June 2003 had been preceded by a radiologist recommendation on the prior report. Trends over time were analyzed with linear regression, and 95% confidence intervals were calculated.
RESULTS: Between July 2002 and June 2003, 31 111 of 100 335 examinations (31%) were repeat examinations. Body CT (9057 of 20 177 [45%] chest and 8319 of 22 438 [37%] abdomen) and brain imaging (6823 of 18 378 [37%] CT and 3427 of 11 455 [30%] MR imaging) represented the highest repeat categories. Among five high-cost, high-volume imaging examinations, 6426 of 85 014 (8%) followed a report with a radiologist recommendation. Most common indications for examination repetition were neurologic surveillance within 2 weeks and cancer follow-up at 2-7 months. From 1997 to mid-2003, MR imaging and CT repeat rates increased (0.71% per year [P < .01] and 1.87% per year [P < .01], respectively).
CONCLUSION: Repeat examinations account for nearly one-third of high-cost radiology examinations and represent an increasing proportion of such examinations. Most repeat examinations are initiated clinically without a recommendation by a radiologist. (c) RSNA, 2007.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17325070     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2423051754

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  13 in total

1.  Clinical demand for chest/abdomen/pelvis anatomy following thoracic or lumbar spine CT.

Authors:  Tiffany M Newman; Matthew D Cham; Honglei Zhang; Keith D Hentel; Kevin Mennitt; Linda Heier; Martin R Prince
Journal:  Emerg Radiol       Date:  2012-02-28

Review 2.  Imaging informatics: essential tools for the delivery of imaging services.

Authors:  David S Mendelson; Daniel L Rubin
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 3.173

3.  Repeat abdominal imaging examinations in a tertiary care hospital.

Authors:  Ivan K Ip; Koenraad J Mortele; Luciano M Prevedello; Ramin Khorasani
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 4.965

4.  Utilization and appropriateness in cervical spine trauma imaging: implementation of clinical decision support criteria.

Authors:  John P Hynes; K Hunter; M Rochford
Journal:  Ir J Med Sci       Date:  2019-07-10       Impact factor: 1.568

Review 5.  Journal club: Requiring clinical justification to override repeat imaging decision support: impact on CT use.

Authors:  Stacy D O'Connor; Aaron D Sodickson; Ivan K Ip; Ali S Raja; Michael J Healey; Louise I Schneider; Ramin Khorasani
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2014-11       Impact factor: 3.959

6.  Redundant Neurovascular Imaging: Who Is to Blame and What Is the Value?

Authors:  E Beheshtian; S Emamzadehfard; S Sahraian; R Jalilianhasanpour; D M Yousem
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2019-12-05       Impact factor: 3.825

7.  Diagnostic yield of recommendations for chest CT examination prompted by outpatient chest radiographic findings.

Authors:  H Benjamin Harvey; Matthew D Gilman; Carol C Wu; Matthew S Cushing; Elkan F Halpern; Jing Zhao; Pari V Pandharipande; Jo-Anne O Shepard; Tarik K Alkasab
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2014-12-22       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  CT utilization: the emergency department perspective.

Authors:  Joshua Seth Broder
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2008-09-23

9.  "Chasing a Ghost": Factors that Influence Primary Care Physicians to Follow Up on Incidental Imaging Findings.

Authors:  Hanna M Zafar; Eva K Bugos; Curtis P Langlotz; Rosemary Frasso
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2016-05-17       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  What causes increasing and unnecessary use of radiological investigations? A survey of radiologists' perceptions.

Authors:  Kristin B Lysdahl; Bjørn M Hofmann
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2009-09-01       Impact factor: 2.655

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.