Literature DB >> 30637838

Factors predicting the time-length variability of identically protocoled MRI exams.

Gregory D Avey1, Daryn S Belden1, Ryan D Zea2, John-Paul J Yu1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Clinical variability in MRI exam durations can impede efficient MRI utilization. There is a paucity of data regarding the degree of variability of identically protocoled MRI studies and when nontechnological factors contribute to time-length variations in MRI exams.
PURPOSE: To measure the magnitude of variation in MRI exam duration for identically protocoled MRI exams and to identify potential contributors to variations in MRI exam times. STUDY TYPE: Retrospective.
SUBJECTS: 2705 identically protocoled MRI examinations of the cervical spine without contrast, comprehensive stroke exams, and comprehensive brain examinations performed on adult patients from June 30, 2016 through June 30, 2017. ASSESSMENT: MRI exam duration was obtained directly from the image data. Potential predictors for exam length variability were evaluated including patient age, patient gender, performing technologist, patient status (inpatient/outpatient/emergency department), MRI field strength, use of sedation, day of week, and the time of day. STATISTICAL TESTS: Linear regression analysis was performed for each individual variable after correcting for the MRI exam type. A multivariate mixed model was generated to assess for independent associations between the predictors and exam duration.
RESULTS: There was substantial variability in the duration of the selected clinical MRI exams, with standard deviations (SDs) ranging between 19% and 29% of the mean exam length for each individual type of exam. The performing technologist was the most significant identified factor contributing to this variation in exam length; SD = 2.645 (P < 0.001). Compared with outpatient exams, inpatient exams required 4.18 minutes longer to complete (P < 0.001), and emergency department studies 1.86 minutes longer (P = 0.005). Male gender was associated with an additional 1.36 minutes of exam time (P < 0.001). DATA
CONCLUSION: Nontechnical factors are associated with substantial variation in MRI exam times. These variations can be predicted based on relatively simple clinical and demographic factors, with implications for MRI exam scheduling, protocol design, staff training, and workflow design. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Technical Efficacy: Stage 6 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019.
© 2019 International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine.

Entities:  

Year:  2019        PMID: 30637838      PMCID: PMC6551283          DOI: 10.1002/jmri.26591

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging        ISSN: 1053-1807            Impact factor:   4.813


  10 in total

Review 1.  Quality initiatives: lean approach to improving performance and efficiency in a radiology department.

Authors:  Jonathan B Kruskal; Allen Reedy; Laurie Pascal; Max P Rosen; Phillip M Boiselle
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  2012-02-08       Impact factor: 5.333

2.  Enhancing same-day access to magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Li Zhang; Antje Hefke; Jens Figiel; Ulrike Schwarz; Marga Rominger; Klaus Jochen Klose
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 5.532

3.  Implementation of graphic user interface screen capture solution for workflow assessment of abdominal MR examinations valuable tool to analyze discrepancies in expected and experienced MR table time.

Authors:  Christopher J Roth; Daniel T Boll; Yen W Chea; Lisa K Wall; Elmar M Merkle
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2009-07-10       Impact factor: 3.173

4.  Optimizing MRI Logistics: Focused Process Improvements Can Increase Throughput in an Academic Radiology Department.

Authors:  Jeremy J O'Brien; Jeremy Stormann; Kelli Roche; Ines Cabral-Goncalves; Annamarie Monks; Donna Hallett; Koenraad J Mortele
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2016-12-08       Impact factor: 3.959

5.  MRI: time is dose--and money and versatility.

Authors:  William A Edelstein; Mahadevappa Mahesh; John A Carrino
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 5.532

6.  Workflow efficiency of two 1.5 T MR scanners with and without an automated user interface for head examinations.

Authors:  Christoph Moenninghoff; Lale Umutlu; Christian Kloeters; Adrian Ringelstein; Mark E Ladd; Antje Sombetzki; Thomas C Lauenstein; Michael Forsting; Marc Schlamann
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2013-03-07       Impact factor: 3.173

7.  Ultrafast Brain MRI: Clinical Deployment and Comparison to Conventional Brain MRI at 3T.

Authors:  Supada Prakkamakul; Thomas Witzel; Susie Huang; Daniel Boulter; Maria J Borja; Pamela Schaefer; Bruce Rosen; Keith Heberlein; Eva Ratai; Gilberto Gonzalez; Otto Rapalino
Journal:  J Neuroimaging       Date:  2016-06-07       Impact factor: 2.486

8.  Changing Utilization of Noninvasive Diagnostic Imaging Over 2 Decades: An Examination Family-Focused Analysis of Medicare Claims Using the Neiman Imaging Types of Service Categorization System.

Authors:  David A Rosman; Richard Duszak; Wenyi Wang; Danny R Hughes; Andrew B Rosenkrantz
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2017-12-08       Impact factor: 3.959

9.  Utilization Trends in Diagnostic Imaging for a Commercially Insured Population: A Study of Massachusetts Residents 2009 to 2013.

Authors:  Stephen Flaherty; Koenraad J Mortele; Gary J Young
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2018-04-14       Impact factor: 5.532

10.  Optimizing MRI Logistics: Prospective Analysis of Performance, Efficiency, and Patient Throughput.

Authors:  Kevin Beker; Alejandro Garces-Descovich; Jason Mangosing; Ines Cabral-Goncalves; Donna Hallett; Koenraad J Mortele
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2017-07-20       Impact factor: 3.959

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.