Literature DB >> 24902657

The impact of introducing a no oral contrast abdominopelvic CT examination (NOCAPE) pathway on radiology turn around times, emergency department length of stay, and patient safety.

Seyed Amirhossein Razavi1, Jamlik-Omari Johnson, Michael T Kassin, Kimberly E Applegate.   

Abstract

This investigation evaluates the impact of the no oral contrast abdominopelvic CT examination (NOCAPE) on radiology turn around time (TAT), emergency department (ED) length of stay (LOS), and patient safety metrics. During a 12-month period at two urban teaching hospitals, 6,409 ED abdominopelvic (AP) CTs were performed to evaluate acute abdominal pain. NOCAPE represented 70.9 % of all ED AP CT examinations with intravenous contrast. Data collection included patient demographics, use of intravenous (IV) and/or oral contrast, order to complete and order to final interpretation TAT, ED LOS, admission, recall and bounce back rates, and comparison and characterization of impressions. The NOCAPE pathway reduced median order to complete TAT by 32 min (22.9 %) compared to IV and oral contrast AP CT examinations (traditional pathway) (P < 0.001). Median order to final TAT was 2.9 h in NOCAPE patients and 3.5 h in the traditional pathway, a 36-min (17.1 %) reduction (P < 0.001). Overall, the NOCAPE pathway reduced ED LOS by a median of 43 min (8.8 %) compared to the traditional pathway (8.2 vs 7.5 h) (P = 0.003). Recall and bounce back rates were 3.2 %, and only one patient had change in impression after oral contrast CT was repeated. The NOCAPE pathway is associated with decreased radiology TAT and ED LOS metrics. The authors suggest that NOCAPE implementation in the ED setting is safe and positively impacts both radiology and emergency medicine workflow.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24902657     DOI: 10.1007/s10140-014-1240-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Emerg Radiol        ISSN: 1070-3004


  29 in total

1.  Emergency department overcrowding following systematic hospital restructuring: trends at twenty hospitals over ten years.

Authors:  M J Schull; J P Szalai; B Schwartz; D A Redelmeier
Journal:  Acad Emerg Med       Date:  2001-11       Impact factor: 3.451

Review 2.  Emergency department overcrowding in the United States: an emerging threat to patient safety and public health.

Authors:  S Trzeciak; E P Rivers
Journal:  Emerg Med J       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 2.740

3.  Unenhanced helical CT for suspected acute appendicitis.

Authors:  M J Lane; D S Katz; B A Ross; T L Clautice-Engle; R E Mindelzun; R B Jeffrey
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1997-02       Impact factor: 3.959

4.  Oral contrast media in CT of the abdomen. A double-blind randomized study comparing an aqueous solution of amidotrizoate, an aqueous solution of iohexol and a viscous solution of iohexol.

Authors:  M Lönnemark; A Magnusson; H Ahlström
Journal:  Acta Radiol       Date:  1993-09       Impact factor: 1.990

5.  Intravenous contrast alone vs intravenous and oral contrast computed tomography for the diagnosis of appendicitis in adult ED patients.

Authors:  Andrew M Kepner; Jerome V Bacasnot; Barbara A Stahlman
Journal:  Am J Emerg Med       Date:  2012-05-23       Impact factor: 2.469

6.  Computed tomography and ultrasonography do not improve and may delay the diagnosis and treatment of acute appendicitis.

Authors:  S L Lee; A J Walsh; H S Ho
Journal:  Arch Surg       Date:  2001-05

7.  CT scan for suspected acute abdominal process: impact of combinations of IV, oral, and rectal contrast.

Authors:  Brian C Hill; Scott C Johnson; Emily K Owens; Jennifer L Gerber; Anthony J Senagore
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 3.352

8.  Patient encounter time intervals in the evaluation of emergency department patients requiring abdominopelvic CT: oral contrast versus no contrast.

Authors:  Ly N Huynh; Bret F Coughlin; Jeannette Wolfe; Fidela Blank; Steve Y Lee; Howard A Smithline
Journal:  Emerg Radiol       Date:  2004-05-29

9.  Abdominal 64-MDCT for suspected appendicitis: the use of oral and IV contrast material versus IV contrast material only.

Authors:  Stephan W Anderson; Jorge A Soto; Brian C Lucey; Al Ozonoff; Jacqueline D Jordan; Jirair Ratevosian; Andrew S Ulrich; Niels K Rathlev; Patricia M Mitchell; Casey Rebholz; James A Feldman; James T Rhea
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 3.959

10.  The value of water-soluble contrast radiology in the management of acute small bowel obstruction.

Authors:  W P Joyce; P V Delaney; T F Gorey; J M Fitzpatrick
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  1992-11       Impact factor: 1.891

View more
  4 in total

Review 1.  Oral contrast for CT in patients with acute non-traumatic abdominal and pelvic pain: what should be its current role?

Authors:  Ania Z Kielar; Michael N Patlas; Douglas S Katz
Journal:  Emerg Radiol       Date:  2016-05-11

2.  Diagnosing acute appendicitis using a nonoral contrast CT protocol in patients with a BMI of less than 25.

Authors:  Vijay Ramalingam; David D B Bates; Karen Buch; Jennifer Uyeda; Kathy M Zhao; Lindsey A Storer; Marisa B Roberts; Christina A Lebedis; Jorge A Soto; Stephan W Anderson
Journal:  Emerg Radiol       Date:  2016-07-08

Review 3.  Small bowel diverticulitis: an imaging review of an uncommon entity.

Authors:  Darren L Transue; Tarek N Hanna; Haris Shekhani; Saurabh Rohatgi; Faisal Khosa; Jamlik-Omari Johnson
Journal:  Emerg Radiol       Date:  2016-11-04

4.  New CT-based diagnoses of torso cancer is low in the emergency department setting.

Authors:  Inessa A Goldman; Alain Cunqueiro; Meir H Scheinfeld
Journal:  Emerg Radiol       Date:  2019-08-20
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.