Advertisement

Viewing Imaging Studies: How Patient Location and Imaging Site Affect Referring Physicians

  • Fatemeh HomayouniehEmail author
  • Ramandeep Singh
  • Tianqi Chen
  • Ellen J. Sugarman
  • Thomas J. Schultz
  • Subba R. Digumarthy
  • Keith J. Dreyer
  • Mannudeep K. Kalra
Article
  • 10 Downloads

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to assess if clinical indications, patient location, and imaging sites predict the viewing pattern of referring physicians for CT and MR of the head, chest, and abdomen. Our study included 166,953 CT/MR images of head/chest/abdomen in 2016–2017 in the outpatient (OP, n = 83,981 CT/MR), inpatient (IP, n = 51,052), and emergency (ED, n = 31,920) settings. There were 125,329 CT/MR performed in the hospital setting and 41,624 in one of the nine off-campus locations. We extracted information regarding body region (head/chest/abdomen), patient location, and imaging site from the electronic medical records (EPIC). We recorded clinical indications and the number of times referring physicians viewed CT/MR (defined as the number of separate views of imaging in the EPIC). Data were analyzed with the Microsoft SQL and SPSS statistical software. About 33% of IP CT and MR studies are viewed > 6 times compared to 7% for OP and 19% of ED studies (p < 0.001). Conversely, most OP studies (55%) were viewed 1–2 times only, compared to 21% for IP and 38% for ED studies (p < 0.001). In-hospital exams are viewed (≥ 6 views; 39% studies) more frequently than off-campus imaging (≥ 6 views; 17% studies) (p < 0.001). For head CT/MR, certain clinical indications (i.e., stroke) had higher viewing rates compared to other clinical indications such as malignancy, headache, and dizziness. Conversely, for chest CT, dyspnea-hypoxia had much higher viewing rates (> 6 times) in IP (55%) and ED (46%) than in OP settings (22%). Patient location and imaging site regardless of clinical indications have a profound effect on viewing patterns of referring physicians. Understanding viewing patterns of the referring physicians can help guide interpretation priorities and finding communication for imaging exams based on patient location, imaging site, and clinical indications. The information can help in the efficient delivery of patient care.

Keywords

CT MR Radiology reports Referring physician Patient location Imaging use 

Notes

Funding Information

One study co-author (MKK) received research grants from Siemens Healthineers and Riverain Inc. for unrelated research.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

This retrospective, quality assurance study was exempted from Institutional Review Board approval and used de-identified patient information.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Maros ME, Wenz R, Förster A, Froelich MF, Groden C, Sommer WH, Schönberg SO, Henzler T, Wenz H: Objective comparison using guideline-based query of conventional radiological reports and structured reports. In Vivo. 32:843–849, 2018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pinto Dos Santos D, Hempel JM, Mildenberger P, Klöckner R, Persigehl T: Structured reporting in clinical routine. Rofo. 191:33–39, 2019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mabotuwana T, Hombal V, Dalal S, Hall CS, Gunn M: Determining adherence to follow-up imaging recommendations. J Am Coll Radiol. 15(3 Pt A):422–428, 2018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Meng X, Ganoe CH, Sieberg RT, Cheung YY, Hassanpour S: Assisting radiologists with reporting urgent findings to referring physicians: a machine learning approach to identify cases for prompt communication. J Biomed Inform. 93:103169, 2019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bhatti ZS, Brown RKJ, Kazerooni EA, Davenport MS: Communicating radiology test results: are our phone calls excessive, just right, or not enough? Acad Radiol. 25:365–371, 2018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Duncan KA, Drinkwater KJ, Dugar N, Howlett DC, Royal College of Radiologists’ Clinical Radiology Audit Committee: Audit of radiology communication systems for critical, urgent, and unexpected significant findings. Clin Radiol. 71:265–270, 2016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Larson PA, Berland LL, Griffith B, Kahn, Jr CE, Liebscher LA: Actionable findings and the role of IT support: report of the ACR Actionable Reporting Work Group. J Am Coll Radiol. 11:552–558, 2014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    McEnery KW, Suitor CT, Thompson SK et al.: Enterprise utilization of “always on-line” diagnostic study archive. J Digit Imaging. 15(Suppl 1):81–86, 2002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Harvey HB, Krishnaraj A, Alkasab TK: A software system to collect expert relevance ratings of medical record items for specific clinical tasks. JMIR Med Inform. 2:e3, 2014CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Imaging Informatics in Medicine 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General HospitalHarvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Data SciencesDana-Farber Cancer InstituteBostonUSA
  3. 3.Department of Information SystemsPartners HealthCare SystemBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations