OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to increase the value of MRI by reengineering the MRI workflow at a new imaging center to shorten the interval (i.e., turnaround time) between each patient examination by at least 5 minutes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The elements of the MRI workflow that were optimized included the use of dockable tables, the location of patient preparation rooms, the number of doors per scanning room, and the storage location and duplication of coils. Turnaround times at the new center and at two existing centers were measured both for all patients and for situations when the next patient was ready to be brought into the scanner room after the previous patient's examination was completed. RESULTS: Workflow optimizations included the use of dockable tables, dedicated patient preparation rooms, two doors in each MRI room, positioning the scanner to provide the most direct path to the scanner, and coil storage in the preparation rooms, with duplication of the most frequently used coils. At the new imaging center, the median and mean (± SD) turnaround times for situations in which patients were ready for scanning were 115 seconds (95% CI, 113-117 seconds) and 132 ± 72 seconds (95% CI, 129-135 seconds), respectively, and the median and mean turnaround times for all situations were 141 seconds (95% CI, 137-146 seconds) and 272 ± 270 seconds (95% CI, 263-282 seconds), respectively. For existing imaging centers, the median and mean turnaround times for situations in which patients were ready for scanning were 430 seconds (95% CI, 424-434 seconds) and 460 ± 156 seconds (95% CI, 455-465 seconds), respectively, and the median and mean turnaround times for all situations were 481 seconds (95% CI, 474-486 seconds) and 537 ± 219 seconds (95% CI, 532-543 seconds), respectively. CONCLUSION: The optimized MRI workflow resulted in a mean time savings of 5 minutes 28 seconds per patient.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to increase the value of MRI by reengineering the MRI workflow at a new imaging center to shorten the interval (i.e., turnaround time) between each patient examination by at least 5 minutes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The elements of the MRI workflow that were optimized included the use of dockable tables, the location of patient preparation rooms, the number of doors per scanning room, and the storage location and duplication of coils. Turnaround times at the new center and at two existing centers were measured both for all patients and for situations when the next patient was ready to be brought into the scanner room after the previous patient's examination was completed. RESULTS: Workflow optimizations included the use of dockable tables, dedicated patient preparation rooms, two doors in each MRI room, positioning the scanner to provide the most direct path to the scanner, and coil storage in the preparation rooms, with duplication of the most frequently used coils. At the new imaging center, the median and mean (± SD) turnaround times for situations in which patients were ready for scanning were 115 seconds (95% CI, 113-117 seconds) and 132 ± 72 seconds (95% CI, 129-135 seconds), respectively, and the median and mean turnaround times for all situations were 141 seconds (95% CI, 137-146 seconds) and 272 ± 270 seconds (95% CI, 263-282 seconds), respectively. For existing imaging centers, the median and mean turnaround times for situations in which patients were ready for scanning were 430 seconds (95% CI, 424-434 seconds) and 460 ± 156 seconds (95% CI, 455-465 seconds), respectively, and the median and mean turnaround times for all situations were 481 seconds (95% CI, 474-486 seconds) and 537 ± 219 seconds (95% CI, 532-543 seconds), respectively. CONCLUSION: The optimized MRI workflow resulted in a mean time savings of 5 minutes 28 seconds per patient.
Entities:
Keywords:
MRI; dockable table; turnaround time; value
Authors: Li Feng; Thomas Benkert; Kai Tobias Block; Daniel K Sodickson; Ricardo Otazo; Hersh Chandarana Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2016-12-16 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Michael Recht; Michael Macari; Kirk Lawson; Tom Mulholland; David Chen; Danny Kim; James Babb Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2012-12-12 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Kerstin Hammernik; Teresa Klatzer; Erich Kobler; Michael P Recht; Daniel K Sodickson; Thomas Pock; Florian Knoll Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2017-11-08 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Hersh Chandarana; Li Feng; Tobias K Block; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Ruth P Lim; James S Babb; Daniel K Sodickson; Ricardo Otazo Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Dan Ma; Vikas Gulani; Nicole Seiberlich; Kecheng Liu; Jeffrey L Sunshine; Jeffrey L Duerk; Mark A Griswold Journal: Nature Date: 2013-03-14 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Diego Tlapa; Guilherme Tortorella; Flavio Fogliatto; Maneesh Kumar; Alejandro Mac Cawley; Roberto Vassolo; Luis Enberg; Yolanda Baez-Lopez Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-07-25 Impact factor: 4.614