Fabian G Mueck1, Kathrin Wirth1, Maximilian Muggenthaler1, Uwe Kreimeier2, Lucas Geyer1, Karl-Georg Kanz3, Ulrich Linsenmaier4, Stefan Wirth1. 1. 1 Department of Clinical Radiology, LMU Hospital of the University of Munich, Munich, Germany. 2. 2 Department of Anesthesiology, LMU Hospital of the University of Munich, Munich, Germany. 3. 3 Department of Trauma Surgery, Hospital of the Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany. 4. 4 Department of diagnostic and interventional radiology, HELIOS Clinic Munich East, Munich, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to analyse and interpret radiological mass casualty incident workflow data. METHODS: In a mid-scale mass casualty incident exercise, the on-site triage assigned 12 cases to the investigated institution (11 included in the study). Two out of five institutional multislice-CT-scanners were used and the whole CT workflow and radiological service process chain were simulated as close to realistic as possible. The respective time intervals for reaching defined milestones were measured. RESULTS: The average CT in-room time, i.e. from entering to leaving the CT room was 9.43 min [(standard deviation) SD: 2.27 min; 95% (confidence interval) CI: 7.90-10.95 min]. Time spent on CT table was 6.75 min (SD: 1.67; CI: 5.63-7.87), and the pure scan time was 4.22 min (SD: 0.64; CI: 3.79-4.65). The first images after entering the CT room were available at a dedicated CT workstation after 5.85 min (SD: 2.20; CI: 4.37-7.32) and institution wide via picture archiving system (PACS) after 7.85 min (SD: 1.27; CI: 7.00-8.71). However, the PACS archiving process, that is, transfer of standard reconstruction set of CT images into the PACS was finished after 20.85 min (SD: 2.97; CI: 18.85-22.84). CONCLUSION: Up to six patients may be served per hour and per CT scanner by using a standard whole body CT polytrauma protocol. Dedicated CT triage protocols may even increase this number. The time portion until images were available at end points was relatively long. A solution has to be developed in order to avoid scenarios of patients being faster at end points than their images.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to analyse and interpret radiological mass casualty incident workflow data. METHODS: In a mid-scale mass casualty incident exercise, the on-site triage assigned 12 cases to the investigated institution (11 included in the study). Two out of five institutional multislice-CT-scanners were used and the whole CT workflow and radiological service process chain were simulated as close to realistic as possible. The respective time intervals for reaching defined milestones were measured. RESULTS: The average CT in-room time, i.e. from entering to leaving the CT room was 9.43 min [(standard deviation) SD: 2.27 min; 95% (confidence interval) CI: 7.90-10.95 min]. Time spent on CT table was 6.75 min (SD: 1.67; CI: 5.63-7.87), and the pure scan time was 4.22 min (SD: 0.64; CI: 3.79-4.65). The first images after entering the CT room were available at a dedicated CT workstation after 5.85 min (SD: 2.20; CI: 4.37-7.32) and institution wide via picture archiving system (PACS) after 7.85 min (SD: 1.27; CI: 7.00-8.71). However, the PACS archiving process, that is, transfer of standard reconstruction set of CT images into the PACS was finished after 20.85 min (SD: 2.97; CI: 18.85-22.84). CONCLUSION: Up to six patients may be served per hour and per CT scanner by using a standard whole body CT polytrauma protocol. Dedicated CT triage protocols may even increase this number. The time portion until images were available at end points was relatively long. A solution has to be developed in order to avoid scenarios of patients being faster at end points than their images.
Authors: Markus Körner; Michael M Krötz; Stefan Wirth; Stefan Huber-Wagner; Karl-Georg Kanz; Holger F Boehm; Maximilian Reiser; Ulrich Linsenmaier Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2009-03-11 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Pamela T Johnson; William W Scott; Bob W Gayler; Jonathan S Lewin; Elliot K Fishman Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Stefan Huber-Wagner; Rolf Lefering; Lars-Mikael Qvick; Markus Körner; Michael V Kay; Klaus-Jürgen Pfeifer; Maximilian Reiser; Wolf Mutschler; Karl-Georg Kanz Journal: Lancet Date: 2009-03-25 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Lucas L Geyer; Markus Koerner; Stefan Wirth; Fabian G Mueck; Maximilian F Reiser; Ulrich Linsenmaier Journal: Semin Musculoskelet Radiol Date: 2013-10-07 Impact factor: 1.777
Authors: Ingri L E Postma; Hanneke Weel; Martin J Heetveld; Ineke van der Zande; Taco S Bijlsma; Frank W Bloemers; J Carel Goslings Journal: Injury Date: 2013-05-28 Impact factor: 2.586
Authors: Charles L Sprung; Janice L Zimmerman; Michael D Christian; Gavin M Joynt; John L Hick; Bruce Taylor; Guy A Richards; Christian Sandrock; Robert Cohen; Bruria Adini Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2010-02-05 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: M G Wagner; M R Fischer; M Scaglione; U Linsenmaier; G Schueller; F H Berger; E Dick; R Basilico; M Stajgis; C Calli; S Vaidya; Stefan Wirth Journal: GMS J Med Educ Date: 2017-11-15
Authors: Stefan Wirth; Julian Hebebrand; Raffaella Basilico; Ferco H Berger; Ana Blanco; Cem Calli; Maureen Dumba; Ulrich Linsenmaier; Fabian Mück; Konraad H Nieboer; Mariano Scaglione; Marc-André Weber; Elizabeth Dick Journal: Insights Imaging Date: 2020-12-10