Unread second-opinion radiology reports waste health care resources



Unread second-opinion radiology reports waste health care resources
Credit: American Roentgen Ray Society (ARRS), American Journal of Roentgenology (AJR)

According to ARRS’ American Journal of Roentgenology (AJR), clinicians don’t learn a substantial proportion of second-opinion radiology reports—”a situation that can be regarded as an appreciable but potentially reversible waste of health care resources,” the authors of this AJR “Health Care Policy and Quality” article concluded.

Conducted by three radiologists from University Medical Center Groningen in The Netherlands, this retrospective examine included 4,696 consecutive second-opinion reports of exterior imaging examinations approved by subspecialty radiologists at a tertiary care establishment between January 1 and December 31, 2018.

Of the 4,696 second-opinion reports, 537 weren’t learn by a clinician, equivalent to a frequency of 11.4% (95% CI, 10.6-12.3%).

The imaging modality with the very best charge of not being learn was sonography (20/32 [62.5%]), the requesting specialty with the very best charge was pediatrics (26/77 [33.8%]), and the radiologic subspecialty with the was (12/23 [52.2%]).

On multivariate logistic regression evaluation, first writer Sabine A. Heinz discovered that the next variables remained considerably and independently related to the second-opinion report not being learn:

  • inpatient standing (odds ratio [OR], 163.26; p
  • sonography because the imaging modality (OR, 5.07; p = 0.014),
  • surgical procedure (OR, 0.18; p
  • interventional radiology because the subspecialty of the radiologist who approved the second-opinion report (OR, 3.52; p = 0.047).

Noting that the National Healthcare Authority of The Netherlands permits as much as €100 ($118) to be charged for every second-opinion studying, and {that a} typical second-opinion studying takes roughly 15 minutes, Heinz and colleagues calculated that the 537 unread second-opinion reports might value as a lot as €53,700 ($63,427), in addition to roughly 134.25 hours of interpretation time.

“Although these numbers appear modest, they pertain to a single institution during a 1-year time period,” Heinz et al. wrote, including that cumulative nationwide figures would increase these totals, “possibly substantially,” and that the variety of unread second-opinion reports will possible improve, “given the projected rise in future second-opinion requests.”

Furthermore, since opening the report within the digital affected person file system doesn’t essentially imply that the truly learn mentioned report, Heinz and group contend that the speed of reports not being learn (11.4%) is probably going an underestimation.

Ultimately, “if subspecialty radiologists and clinicians take proven determinants into account,” the authors of this AJR article maintained, “the amount of second-opinion readings with limited additional clinical value may be reduced.”

American Journal of Roentgenology finds no consensus on handling outside imaging studies

More data:
Sabine A. Heinz et al, Unread Second-Opinion Radiology Reports: A Potential Waste of Health Care Resources, American Journal of Roentgenology (2020). DOI: 10.2214/AJR.19.22662

Unread second-opinion radiology reports waste health care resources (2020, August 13)
retrieved 13 August 2020
from https://medicalxpress.com/information/2020-08-unread-second-opinion-radiology-health-resources.html

This doc is topic to copyright. Apart from any truthful dealing for the aim of personal examine or analysis, no
half could also be reproduced with out the written permission. The content material is offered for data functions solely.


Source link

Leave a Reply