Achyut B Kamat1, Stephanie Midgley2, Katherine Kimbrell3. 1. Department of Emergency Medicine, Rhode Island and the Miriam Hospitals, Warren Alpert School of Medicine of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, USA Department of Emergency Medicine, The Miriam Hospital, Providence, Rhode Island, USA. 2. Department of Emergency Medicine, Rhode Island and the Miriam Hospitals, Warren Alpert School of Medicine of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, USA UEMF, Providence, Rhode Island, USA. 3. Department of Emergency Medicine, Memorial Hospital of Rhode Island, Warren Alpert School of Medicine of Brown University, Pawtucket, Rhode Island, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To quantify the rate of preventable duplication of imaging studies in the Emergency Department. Previously, to estimate potential savings from the Health Information Exchange, figures used to be based on expert opinion, as the actual rate of redundant imaging is unknown. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We prospectively quantified the frequency of duplicate CT scans in tertiary care and community hospital emergency departments (ED) through a short questionnaire at the time the studies were ordered. RESULTS: During the study period, 9246 CT scans were performed with a preventable duplicate rate of 0.42%. Both sites had equivalent rates of preventable duplicates. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: We used two EDs to quantify the rate of preventable duplicate CT scans ordered. Our results demonstrate that only 0.4% of CT scans performed in our EDs are preventable duplicates. Our rate of preventable duplicate studies was much lower than what experts and emergency practitioners suspected, which suggests that potential cost savings from elimination of preventable duplicates may also be much lower than currently estimated. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
OBJECTIVE: To quantify the rate of preventable duplication of imaging studies in the Emergency Department. Previously, to estimate potential savings from the Health Information Exchange, figures used to be based on expert opinion, as the actual rate of redundant imaging is unknown. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We prospectively quantified the frequency of duplicate CT scans in tertiary care and community hospital emergency departments (ED) through a short questionnaire at the time the studies were ordered. RESULTS: During the study period, 9246 CT scans were performed with a preventable duplicate rate of 0.42%. Both sites had equivalent rates of preventable duplicates. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: We used two EDs to quantify the rate of preventable duplicate CT scans ordered. Our results demonstrate that only 0.4% of CT scans performed in our EDs are preventable duplicates. Our rate of preventable duplicate studies was much lower than what experts and emergency practitioners suspected, which suggests that potential cost savings from elimination of preventable duplicates may also be much lower than currently estimated. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
Keywords:
Cost Effectiveness; Data Management; Emergency Department Management; Imaging, CT/MRI; Quality Assurance
Authors: Parth K Shah; Phyllis L Yan; Casey A Dauw; Brent K Hollenbeck; Khurshid R Ghani; Amy N Luckenbaugh; John M Hollingsworth Journal: Urology Date: 2018-01-31 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: A L Callen; D S Chow; Y A Chen; H R Richelle; J Pao; M Bardis; B D Weinberg; C P Hess; L P Sugrue Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2020-01-23 Impact factor: 3.825