Mattern C W, King B F, Hangiandreou N J, Swenson A, Jorgenson L L, Webbles W E, Okrzynski T W, Erickson B J, Williamson B, Forbes G S
Mayo Medical Center, Rochester, MN 55905, USA.
J Digit Imaging. 1999 May;12(2 Suppl 1):155-9. doi: 10.1007/BF03168787.
We prospectively compared image and report delivery times in our Urgent Care Center (UCC) during a film-based practice (1995) and after complete implementation of an electronic imaging practice in 1997. Before switching to a totally electronic and filmless practice, multiple time periods were consistently measured during a 1-week period in May 1995 and then again in a similar week in May 1997 after implementation of electronic imaging. All practice patterns were the same except for a film-based practice in 1995 versus a filmless practice in 1997. The following times were measured: (1) waiting room time, (2) technologist's time of examination, (3) time to quality control, (4) radiology interpretation times, (5) radiology image and report delivery time, (6) total radiology turn-around time, (7) time to room the patient back in the UCC, and (8) time until the ordering physician views the film. Waiting room time was longer in 1997 (average time, 26:47) versus 1995 (average time, 15:54). The technologist's examination completion time was approximately the same (1995 average time, 06:12; 1997 average time, 05:41). There was also a slight increase in the time of the technologist's electronic verification or quality control in 1997 (average time, 7:17) versus the film-based practice in 1995 (average time, 2:35). However, radiology interpretation times dramatically improved (average time, 49:38 in 1995 versus average time 13:50 in 1997). There was also a decrease in image delivery times to the clinicians in 1997 (median, 53 minutes) versus the film based practice of 1995 (1 hour and 40 minutes). Reports were available with the images immediately upon completion by the radiologist in 1997, compared with a median time of 27 minutes in 1995. Importantly, patients were roomed back into the UCC examination rooms faster after the radiologic procedure in 1997 (average time, 13:36) than they were in 1995 (29:38). Finally, the ordering physicians viewed the diagnostic images and reports in dramatically less time in 1997 (median, 26 minutes) versus 1995 (median, 1 hour and 5 minutes). In conclusion, a filmless electronic imaging practice within our UCC greatly improved radiology image and report delivery times, as well as improved clinical efficiency.
我们前瞻性地比较了1995年基于胶片的医疗模式和1997年完全实施电子成像医疗模式后,我们紧急护理中心(UCC)的影像和报告交付时间。在切换到完全电子化且无胶片的医疗模式之前,于1995年5月的1周内持续测量了多个时间段,在1997年5月实施电子成像后的类似一周再次进行测量。除了1995年基于胶片的医疗模式与1997年无胶片的医疗模式外,所有医疗模式均相同。测量了以下时间:(1)候诊时间,(2)技术人员的检查时间,(3)质量控制时间,(4)放射科解读时间,(5)放射科影像和报告交付时间,(6)放射科总周转时间,(7)将患者送回UCC病房的时间,以及(8)直到开单医生查看胶片的时间。1997年的候诊时间(平均时间26分47秒)比1995年(平均时间15分54秒)更长。技术人员的检查完成时间大致相同(1995年平均时间06分12秒;1997年平均时间05分41秒)。1997年技术人员进行电子验证或质量控制的时间(平均时间7分17秒)与1995年基于胶片的医疗模式(平均时间2分35秒)相比也略有增加。然而,放射科解读时间显著改善(1995年平均时间49分38秒,而1997年平均时间13分50秒)。1997年向临床医生交付影像的时间(中位数53分钟)比1995年基于胶片的医疗模式(1小时40分钟)有所减少。1997年放射科医生完成报告后影像和报告立即可用,而1995年的中位数时间为27分钟。重要的是,1997年放射检查后患者被更快地送回UCC检查室(平均时间13分36秒),比1995年(29分38秒)更快。最后,1997年开单医生查看诊断影像和报告的时间(中位数26分钟)比1995年(中位数1小时05分钟)大幅减少。总之,我们UCC内的无胶片电子成像医疗模式极大地改善了放射科影像和报告交付时间,以及临床效率。