Abstract
Although it is intuitively valuable that more expedient delivery of radiographic images and reports to clinicians would improve patient care, it is important to document these outcomes to validate further advances in these areas. We evaluated the care of 215 patients seen at a walk-in clinic to determine what benefit digital imaging is to the patient. Cohorts consisted of all patients for whom specified radiology examinations were ordered during a 7-day period. The first cohort was recruited when analog films were used. The second cohort received examinations performed with computed radiography (CR) acquisition and computer display, which had been in use for 2 years. Patients were categorized as to the type of study they received, as well as whether a staff radiologist was immediately available to read the study. Clinical behavior was characterized by outcome measures of time to final diagnosis, time to final treatment, and need for follow-up. Our analysis demonstrated a reduction in time to final diagnosis that was better appreciated during the times when a staff radiologist was not immediately available. It also suggested that greater time reductions were seen for patients who received extremity examinations than those who received chest, sinus, or rib films. These data suggest that digital imaging is a useful tool to improve clinical outcome of patients seen in the acute care setting.
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (747.2 KB).
References
- 1.Mattern CWT, King BF, Hangiandreou NJ, et al. Electronic imaging impact on image and report turnaround times. J Digit Imaging. 1999;12(suppl 1):155–159. doi: 10.1007/BF03168787. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Bryan S, Weatherburn G, Watkins J, et al. Radiology report times: Impact of picture archiving and communication systems. Am J Roentgenol. 1998;170:1153–1159. doi: 10.2214/ajr.170.5.9574575. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Kundel HL, Seshadri SB, Langlotz CP, et al. Prospective study of a PACS: Information flow and clinical action in a medical intensive care unit. Radiology. 1996;199:143–149. doi: 10.1148/radiology.199.1.8633138. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Redfern RO, Kundel HL, Seshadri SB, et al. PACS workstation usage and patient outcome surrogates. SPIE. 1997;3035:424–430. doi: 10.1117/12.274599. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Reiner BI, Siegel EL, Hooper F, et al. Impact of filmless imaging on the frequency of clinician review of radiology images. J Digit Imaging. 1998;11:149–150. doi: 10.1007/BF03168288. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Simone DN, Kundel HL, Arenson RL, et al. Effect of a digital imaging network on physician behavior in an intensive care unit. Radiology. 1988;169:41–44. doi: 10.1148/radiology.169.1.3420281. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Piraino DW, Davros WJ, Lieber M, et al. Direct digital versus conventional film screen radiography of the musculoskeletal system. J Digit Imaging. 1998;11:172–173. doi: 10.1007/BF03168295. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Procacci C, Minniti S, Biondetti PP, et al. Comparison between conventional radiography and thoravision in the study of the normal chest. J Digit Imaging. 1997;10:183–184. doi: 10.1007/BF03168695. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Kundel HL, Gefter W, Aronchick J, et al. Accuracy of bedside chest hard-copy screen-film versus hard- and soft-copy computed radiographs in a medical intensive care unit: Receiver operating characteristic analysis. Radiology. 1997;205:859–863. doi: 10.1148/radiology.205.3.9393548. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Steckel RJ, Batra P, Johson S, et al. Comparison of hard- and soft-copy digital chest images with different matrix sizes for managing coronary care unit patients. Am J Roentgenol. 1995;164:837–841. doi: 10.2214/ajr.164.4.7726034. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Mehta CR, Patel NR, Tsiatis AA. Exact significance testing to establish treatment equivalence with ordered categorical data. Biometrics. 1984;40:819–825. doi: 10.2307/2530927. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]