» Articles » PMID: 28243765

Clinical Information Available During Emergency Department Imaging Order Entry and Radiologist Interpretation

Overview
Journal Emerg Radiol
Date 2017 Mar 1
PMID 28243765
Citations 2
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
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.

Citing Articles

Isolated sternal fracture after low-energy trauma in a geriatric patient: a case report.

Sairanen J, Arponen O Int J Emerg Med. 2022; 15(1):34.

PMID: 35906542 PMC: 9338590. DOI: 10.1186/s12245-022-00437-1.


Can Automated Retrieval of Data from Emergency Department Physician Notes Enhance the Imaging Order Entry Process?.

Rousseau J, Ip I, Raja A, Valtchinov V, Cochon L, Schuur J Appl Clin Inform. 2019; 10(2):189-198.

PMID: 30895573 PMC: 6426724. DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1679927.

References
1.
Baek S, Kim M, Kim E, Youk J, Lee H, Son E . Effect of clinical information on diagnostic performance in breast sonography. J Ultrasound Med. 2009; 28(10):1349-56. DOI: 10.7863/jum.2009.28.10.1349. View

2.
McNeil B, Hanley J, Funkenstein H, Wallman J . Paired receiver operating characteristic curves and the effect of history on radiographic interpretation. CT of the head as a case study. Radiology. 1983; 149(1):75-7. DOI: 10.1148/radiology.149.1.6611955. View

3.
Rosenkrantz A, Bonavita J, Foran M, Matza B, McMenamy J . Is there an association between radiologist turnaround time of emergency department abdominal CT studies and radiologic report quality?. Emerg Radiol. 2013; 21(1):5-10. DOI: 10.1007/s10140-013-1164-2. View

4.
Probst M, Dayan P, Raja A, Slovis B, Yadav K, Lam S . Knowledge Translation and Barriers to Imaging Optimization in the Emergency Department: A Research Agenda. Acad Emerg Med. 2015; 22(12):1455-64. PMC: 10548873. DOI: 10.1111/acem.12830. View

5.
Welch S, Jones S, Allen T . Mapping the 24-hour emergency department cycle to improve patient flow. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2007; 33(5):247-55. DOI: 10.1016/s1553-7250(07)33029-8. View