Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Radiologische „report turnaround times“ und Untersuchungszeitpunkte bei Patienten auf Intensivstationen

Eine institutsinterne Qualitätskontrolle

Turnaround time for reporting results of radiological examinations in intensive care unit patients

An internal quality control

  • Originalien
  • Published:
Der Radiologe Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Ziel

Radiologische Untersuchungen bei Patienten von Intensivstationen (ITS) wurden im Sinne einer institutsinternen Qualitätskontrolle mit dem Ziel analysiert, welcher Modalität die Untersuchungen waren, wann die Untersuchungen im Tagesverlauf stattfanden und ob im Verlauf des Untersuchungszeitraums bzgl. Befunderstellung und -freigabe eine Verkürzung der „report turnaround time“ zu verzeichnen waren.

Material und Methoden

Es erfolgte eine retrospektive Analyse der nach Intensivstationen gefilterten RIS-Datenbank aller radiologischen Untersuchungen eines großen deutschen Universitätsklinikums der Jahre 2009–2011. Dabei wurden 75.169 radiologische ITS-Untersuchungen eingeschlossen und bzgl. Untersuchungszeitpunkt, Befundungs- und Freigabezeit sowie nach Art der Untersuchung (konventionelles Röntgen, Ultraschall, Computertomographie [CT], Magnetresonanztomographie [MRT], Angiographie und nuklearmedizinische Untersuchungen) ausgewertet.

Ergebnisse

Modalitätsübergreifend dauerte es im Durchschnitt 52 min bis zum geschriebenen Befund und rund 7 h bis zur endgültigen Befundfreigabe. Die kürzeste „report turnaround time“ fand sich beim Ultraschall, beim konventionellen Röntgen und der CT. Die Dreijahresentwicklung der Befund- und Freigabezeiten zeigte eine Tendenz zu insgesamt kürzeren Zeiten: bei der Befundzeit v. a. beim konventionellen Röntgen, beim MRT und der Sonographie (Verbesserung um 24, 17 bzw. 15 min), bei der Freigabezeit v. a. beim CT, konventionellen Röntgen und der Angiographie (Verbesserung um 6,67, 5,08 bzw. 0,78 h).

Schlussfolgerung

Im Verlauf der betrachteten 3 Jahre konnte insgesamt trotz Erhöhung der Gesamtfallzahlen eine Verkürzung der Befund- und Freigabezeiten nachgewiesen werden.

Abstract

Aims

The radiological examinations performed in intensive care units (ICUs) were analyzed for the purpose of internal quality control. Data included the type of examination performed, the time of day the examination was performed and the differences in radiologist report turnaround times.

Material and methods

A retrospective analysis of the radiology information system (RIS) database of all radiological examinations performed in the ICU of a large German hospital from 2009 through 2011 was carried out. The search retrieved 75,169 examinations performed in ICU patients which were included in the analysis. The records were analyzed for type of radiological examination performed, i.e. conventional X-ray, ultrasound, computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), angiography and nuclear medicine examinations, time of day the examination was performed and the interval between examination and time of reporting and release of the final report.

Results

Cross-modality it took on average 52 min until a report was written and approximately 7 h before the final report was released. Turnaround times were shortest for ultrasound, conventional X-ray and CT. Over the 3-year observation period there was an overall tendency toward shorter turnaround times whereby improvement in time until reporting was most marked for conventional X-ray, MRI and ultrasound (reduction of 24, 17, and 15 min, respectively). The time until release of the final report improved most markedly for CT, conventional X-ray and angiography (improvement of approximately 6.67, 5.08 and 0.78 h, respectively).

Conclusions

During the 3-year observation period a reduction in turnaround times for reporting results and release of finalized reports could be observed, despite an increase in the total number of cases.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Abb. 1
Abb. 2
Abb. 3
Abb. 4
Abb. 5
Abb. 6

Literatur

  1. Voigt LP, Pastores SM, Raoof ND et al (2009) Review of a large clinical series: intrahospital transport of critically ill patients: outcomes, timing, and patterns. J Intensive Care Med 24(2):108–115

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Choudhury D, Ahmed Z (2006) Drug-associated renal dysfunction and injury. Nat Clin Pract Nephrol 2(2):80–91

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Clermont G, Acker CG, Angus DC et al (2002) Renal failure in the ICU: comparison of the impact of acute renal failure and end-stage renal disease on ICU outcomes. Kidney Int 62(3):986–996

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Lepanto L, Pare G, Aubry D et al (2006) Impact of PACS on dictation turnaround time and productivity. J Digit Imaging 19(1):92–97

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Lepanto L, Pare G, Gauvin A (2006) Impact of PACS deployment strategy on dictation turnaround time of chest radiographs. Acad Radiol 13(4):447–452

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Mariani C, Tronchi A, Oncini L et al (2006) Analysis of the X-ray work flow in two diagnostic imaging departments with and without a RIS/PACS system. J Digit Imaging 19(Suppl 1):18–28

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hains IM, Georgiou A, Westbrook JI (2012) The impact of PACS on clinician work practices in the intensive care unit: a systematic review of the literature. J Am Med Inform Assoc 19(4):506–513

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Huber J, Mielck A (2010) Morbidity and healthcare differences between insured in the statutory („GKV“) and private health insurance („PKV“) in Germany. Review of empirical studies. Bundesgesundheitsbl Gesundheitsforsch Gesundheitssch 53(9):925–938

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Lungen M, Stollenwerk B, Messner P et al (2008) Waiting times for elective treatments according to insurance status: a randomized empirical study in Germany. Int J Equity Health 7:1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kuchinke BA, Sauerland D, Wubker A (2009) The influence of insurance status on waiting times in German acute care hospitals: an empirical analysis of new data. Int J Equity Health 8:44

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Schwierz C, Wubker A, Kuchinke BA (2011) Discrimination in waiting times by insurance type and financial soundness of German acute care hospitals. Eur J Health Econ 12(5):405–416

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Rieger HJ (2005) Refusal to treat public health insurance patients because of general practice budget exhaustion – decision of the Dusseldorf Social Court 21 July 2004. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 130(6):297–298

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Boland GW, Halpern EF, Gazelle GS (2010) Radiologist report turnaround time: impact of pay-for-performance measures. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195(3):707–711

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Krishnaraj A, Lee JK, Laws SA, Crawford TJ (2010) Voice recognition software: effect on radiology report turnaround time at an academic medical center. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195(1):194–197

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Glaser C, Trumm C, Nissen-Meyer S et al (2005) Speech recognition: impact on workflow and report availability. Radiologe 45(8):735–742

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Trumm CG, Glaser C, Paasche V et al (2006) Impact of a PACS/RIS-integrated speech recognition system on radiology reporting time and report availability. Rofo 178(4):400–409

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Halsted MJ, Froehle CM (2008) Design, implementation, and assessment of a radiology workflow management system. AJR Am J Roentgenol 191(2):321–327

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Einhaltung der ethischen Richtlinien

Interessenkonflikt. L. Albrecht, R. Busse, H. Tepe, R. Poschmann, U. Teichgräber, B. Hamm, M. de Bucourt geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht. Dieser Beitrag beinhaltet keine Studien an Menschen oder Tieren.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Abteilung Radiologie, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charité-Platz 1, 10117, Berlin, Deutschland

    L. Albrecht, H. Tepe, R. Poschmann, B. Hamm &  M. de Bucourt Dipl. Vw.

  2. Abteilung Health Care Management, Fakultät für Economics und Management, Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Deutschland

    R. Busse

  3. Abteilung Radiologie, Universitätsklinikum Jena, Jena, Deutschland

    U. Teichgräber

Authors
  1. L. Albrecht
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. R. Busse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. H. Tepe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. R. Poschmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. U. Teichgräber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. B. Hamm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. M. de Bucourt Dipl. Vw.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. de Bucourt Dipl. Vw..

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Albrecht, L., Busse, R., Tepe, H. et al. Radiologische „report turnaround times“ und Untersuchungszeitpunkte bei Patienten auf Intensivstationen. Radiologe 53, 810–816 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00117-013-2537-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00117-013-2537-y

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation