Tarek N Hanna1, Saurabh Rohatgi2, Haris N Shekhani2, Ishaan Amit Dave3, Jamlik-Omari Johnson2. 1. Division of Emergency Radiology, Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University Midtown Hospital, 550 Peachtree Road, Atlanta, GA, 30308, USA. tarek.hanna@emory.edu. 2. Division of Emergency Radiology, Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University Midtown Hospital, 550 Peachtree Road, Atlanta, GA, 30308, USA. 3. Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the proportion of Emergency Department (ED) radiology examinations ordered or interpreted prior to a documented clinical assessment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We collected 600 retrospective consecutive ED cases consisting equally of patients whose first ED imaging examination was computed tomography (CT), radiography (XR), or ultrasonography (US). For each patient, the following times were documented: ED arrival, ED departure, ED length of stay (LOS), imaging order entry, image availability, radiology report availability, triage note, ED provider note, and laboratory results. RESULTS: Mean age was 44.2, 66.5% female, and mean ED LOS was 326.2 min. ED LOS was longer for patients who received CT versus XR (343.9 vs. 311.3; p = 0.029). In 25.5% of XR, 10% of CT, and 8% of US cases, the imaging exam was completed before the ED provider note was started. In 20.5% of XR, 6.5% of CT, and 6% of US cases, the radiologist did not have the ED provider note available prior to completing their diagnostic interpretation. In 33.4% of all cases and 57.5% of XR cases, incomplete clinical documentation (triage note, provider note, lab results) was available during radiology report creation. CT and US exams more frequently had clinical data available prior to radiologist interpretation than XR (p < 0.0001). Radiologist turn-around-time was unaffected by clinical information availability. CONCLUSION: Eight percent of ED CT and 10% of ED US examinations were ordered and completed before documented clinical assessment. Thirty-three percent had incomplete clinical assessment performed prior to image interpretation. Further investigation is needed to determine impact on interpretation accuracy.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the proportion of Emergency Department (ED) radiology examinations ordered or interpreted prior to a documented clinical assessment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We collected 600 retrospective consecutive ED cases consisting equally of patients whose first ED imaging examination was computed tomography (CT), radiography (XR), or ultrasonography (US). For each patient, the following times were documented: ED arrival, ED departure, ED length of stay (LOS), imaging order entry, image availability, radiology report availability, triage note, ED provider note, and laboratory results. RESULTS: Mean age was 44.2, 66.5% female, and mean ED LOS was 326.2 min. ED LOS was longer for patients who received CT versus XR (343.9 vs. 311.3; p = 0.029). In 25.5% of XR, 10% of CT, and 8% of US cases, the imaging exam was completed before the ED provider note was started. In 20.5% of XR, 6.5% of CT, and 6% of US cases, the radiologist did not have the ED provider note available prior to completing their diagnostic interpretation. In 33.4% of all cases and 57.5% of XR cases, incomplete clinical documentation (triage note, provider note, lab results) was available during radiology report creation. CT and US exams more frequently had clinical data available prior to radiologist interpretation than XR (p < 0.0001). Radiologist turn-around-time was unaffected by clinical information availability. CONCLUSION: Eight percent of ED CT and 10% of ED US examinations were ordered and completed before documented clinical assessment. Thirty-three percent had incomplete clinical assessment performed prior to image interpretation. Further investigation is needed to determine impact on interpretation accuracy.
Authors: Hemal K Kanzaria; Jerome R Hoffman; Marc A Probst; John P Caloyeras; Sandra H Berry; Robert H Brook Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2015-03-23 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Song-Ee Baek; Min Jung Kim; Eun-Kyung Kim; Ji Hyun Youk; Hye-Jeong Lee; Eun Ju Son Journal: J Ultrasound Med Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 2.153
Authors: Tiina Lehtimäki; Petri Juvonen; Hannu Valtonen; Pekka Miettinen; Hannu Paajanen; Ritva Vanninen Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-05-29 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Marc A Probst; Peter S Dayan; Ali S Raja; Benjamin H Slovis; Kabir Yadav; Samuel H Lam; Jason S Shapiro; Coreen Farris; Charlene I Babcock; Richard T Griffey; Thomas E Robey; Emily M Fortin; Jamlik O Johnson; Suzanne T Chong; Moira Davenport; Daniel W Grigat; Eddy L Lang Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2015-11-14 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Ansaar T Rai; Matthew S Smith; SoHyun Boo; Abdul R Tarabishy; Gerald R Hobbs; Jeffrey S Carpenter Journal: J Neurointerv Surg Date: 2016-01-11 Impact factor: 5.836
Authors: Justin F Rousseau; Ivan K Ip; Ali S Raja; Vladimir I Valtchinov; Laila Cochon; Jeremiah D Schuur; Ramin Khorasani Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2019-03-20 Impact factor: 2.342