Tarek N Hanna1,2, Suprateek Kundu3, Kush Singh4, Michal Horný4,5, Daniel Wood6, Adam Prater4, Richard Duszak3. 1. Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, 1364 Clifton Road NE, Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA. tarek.hanna@emory.edu. 2. Division of Emergency and Trauma Imaging, Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University Midtown Hospital, 550 Peachtree Road, Atlanta, GA, 30308, USA. tarek.hanna@emory.edu. 3. Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA. 4. Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, 1364 Clifton Road NE, Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA. 5. Department of Health Policy and Management, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA. 6. Department of Emergency Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To identify and characterize the most frequent users of emergency department (ED) imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients with at least one ED visit in 2016 across a four-hospital healthcare system were retrospectively identified and their ED imaging utilization characterized. RESULTS: Overall, 126,940 unique patients underwent 187,603 ED visits (mean 1.5 ± 1.7) and a total of 192,142 imaging examinations (mean 1.7 ± 2.7). Fifty-eight percent of patients were imaged (73,672) and underwent a mean 2.6 ± 2.7 exams. When ranked by ED visits, 1.6% (2007) of patients had ≥ 4 ED visits (mean 6.1 ± 5.4). These ED "clinical superusers" accounted for 7.7% (14,409) of total ED visits and underwent 6.8 ± 5.4 imaging examinations, while non-superusers underwent 1.5 ± 2.2 (p < 0.01). When ranked by ED imaging utilization, 12.3% (15,575) of patients underwent ≥ 4 ED imaging examinations and consumed 49.5% (95,053) of all imaging services. A subset of just 1.3% (1608) of ED patients underwent > 10 annual ED examinations (ED "imaging superusers") and accounted for 12.4% (23,787) of all ED imaging services. Only 0.4% (n = 472) of patients were both clinical and imaging superusers. Despite similar ED visits to clinical superusers (6.0 ± 5.6 vs. 6.1 ± 5.4, p = 0.92), imaging superusers underwent significantly more imaging (14.8 ± 4.8 vs. 6.8 ± 5.4 examinations, p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Just 12% of ED patients consume 50% of all ED imaging services, and 1.3% consume 12.4%. These ED imaging superusers represent a distinct group from clinical superusers. Prospective identification of this newly described subgroup might permit targeted interventions to control ED imaging volume, restrain costs, and minimize per-patient radiation exposure.
PURPOSE: To identify and characterize the most frequent users of emergency department (ED) imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients with at least one ED visit in 2016 across a four-hospital healthcare system were retrospectively identified and their ED imaging utilization characterized. RESULTS: Overall, 126,940 unique patients underwent 187,603 ED visits (mean 1.5 ± 1.7) and a total of 192,142 imaging examinations (mean 1.7 ± 2.7). Fifty-eight percent of patients were imaged (73,672) and underwent a mean 2.6 ± 2.7 exams. When ranked by ED visits, 1.6% (2007) of patients had ≥ 4 ED visits (mean 6.1 ± 5.4). These ED "clinical superusers" accounted for 7.7% (14,409) of total ED visits and underwent 6.8 ± 5.4 imaging examinations, while non-superusers underwent 1.5 ± 2.2 (p < 0.01). When ranked by ED imaging utilization, 12.3% (15,575) of patients underwent ≥ 4 ED imaging examinations and consumed 49.5% (95,053) of all imaging services. A subset of just 1.3% (1608) of ED patients underwent > 10 annual ED examinations (ED "imaging superusers") and accounted for 12.4% (23,787) of all ED imaging services. Only 0.4% (n = 472) of patients were both clinical and imaging superusers. Despite similar ED visits to clinical superusers (6.0 ± 5.6 vs. 6.1 ± 5.4, p = 0.92), imaging superusers underwent significantly more imaging (14.8 ± 4.8 vs. 6.8 ± 5.4 examinations, p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Just 12% of ED patients consume 50% of all ED imaging services, and 1.3% consume 12.4%. These ED imaging superusers represent a distinct group from clinical superusers. Prospective identification of this newly described subgroup might permit targeted interventions to control ED imaging volume, restrain costs, and minimize per-patient radiation exposure.
Authors: Fidela S J Blank; Haiping Li; Philip L Henneman; Howard A Smithline; John S Santoro; Deborah Provost; Ann M Maynard Journal: J Emerg Nurs Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 1.836
Authors: Kelly A Hunt; Ellen J Weber; Jonathan A Showstack; David C Colby; Michael L Callaham Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2006-03-30 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Molly Byrne; Andrew William Murphy; Patrick K Plunkett; Hannah M McGee; Alistair Murray; Gerard Bury Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2003-03 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Andrew Herring; Andrew Wilper; David U Himmelstein; Steffie Woolhandler; Janice A Espinola; David F M Brown; Carlos A Camargo Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2009-06-15 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Vincenzo Vingiani; Andres F Abadia; Alessandro Posa; Antonio Corvino; Luigi Pasqualetto; Alfonso Presidente; Matteo Losco; Hunter N Gray; U Joseph Schoepf Journal: Acta Biomed Date: 2020-11-10