Disparities in Provider Ordering Practices of Image-Guided Interventions and Surgery for Patients With Low Back Pain: A Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess individual- and neighborhood-level sociodemographic factors associating with providers' ordering of nonpharmacologic treatments for patients with low back pain (LBP), specifically physical therapy, image-guided interventions, and lumbar surgery. METHODS: Our cohort included all patients diagnosed with LBP from 2000 to 2017 in a statewide database of all hospitals and ambulatory surgical facilities within Utah. We compared sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of (1) patients with LBP who received any treatment with those who received none and (2) patients with LBP who received invasive LBP treatments with those who only received noninvasive LBP treatments using the Student's t test, Wilcoxon's rank-sum tests, and Pearson's χ2 tests, as applicable, and two separate multivariate logistic regression models: (1) to determine whether sociodemographic characteristics were risk factors for receiving any LBP treatments and (2) risk factors for receiving invasive LBP treatments. RESULTS: Individuals in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods were less likely to receive any nonpharmacologic treatment orders (odds ratio [OR] 0.74 for most disadvantaged, P < .001) and received fewer invasive therapies (0.92, P = .018). Individual-level characteristics correlating with lower rates of treatment orders were female sex, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander race (OR 0.50, P < .001), Hispanic ethnicity (OR 0.77, P < .001), single or unmarried status (OR 0.69, P < .001), and no insurance or self-pay (OR 0.07, P < .001). CONCLUSION: Neighborhood and individual sociodemographic variables associated with treatment orders for LBP with Area Deprivation Index, sex, race or ethnicity, insurance, and marital status associating with receipt of any treatment, as well as more invasive image-guided interventions and surgery.

Direct cost analysis of rapid MRI in the emergency department evaluation of patients suspected of having acute ischemic stroke*.

BACKGROUND: Abbreviated "rapid MRI" protocols have become more common for the evaluation of acute ischemic stroke (AIS). Prior research has not evaluated the effect of rapid MRIs on cost or hospital length of stay in AIS patients. METHODS: We retrospectively identified AIS patients who presented within 6 h of acute neurologic symptom onset to an emergency department (ED) and activated a "brain attack" code. We included sequential patients from January 2012 to September 2015, before rapid MRI was available, who had CT perfusion (CTP) and compared them to patients from October 2015 to May 2018 who had a rapid MRI. We used inverse-probability-weighting (IPW) to balance the cohorts. The primary outcomes were direct cost to our healthcare system and total hospital length of stay (LOS). RESULTS: We included 408 brain attack activations (mean ± SD age 62.1 ± 17.6 years, 47.8% male): 257 in the CTP cohort and 151 in the MRI cohort. Discharge diagnosis was ischemic stroke in 193/408 (47.3%). After patient matching, we found significant reductions for the MRI cohort in total cost (-18.7%, 95% CI -35.0, -2.4, p = 0.02) and hospital LOS (-17.0%, 95% CI -31.2, -2.8, p = 0.02), with no difference in ED LOS (p = 0.74) as compared to the CTP cohort. CONCLUSION: Although these results are preliminary and hypothesis-generating, we found that the use of a rapid MRI protocol in emergency department brain attacks was associated with a 18.7% reduction in total direct cost and 17% reduction in hospital length of stay.

Current Controversies in Radiology on Cost, Reimbursement, and Price Transparency: AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review.

Many believe that fundamental reform of the U.S. health care system is overdue and necessary given rising national health care expenditures, poor performance on key population health metrics, meaningful health disparities, concerns about potential financial toxicity of care, inadequate price transparency, pending insolvency of Medicare Part A, increasing commercial insurance premiums, and large uninsured and underinsured populations. The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, an independent congressional agency, believes that part of this reform includes redistribution of reimbursements away from specialties such as radiology. Thus, despite an increase in the Medicare population and spending, Medicare payments for medical imaging have been decreasing for years. Further, the No Surprises Act, a federal law intended to curb the problem of surprise medical billing, was repurposed in federal rulemaking to reduce reimbursement from commercial payers to certain specialties, including radiology. In this article, we examine challenges facing the U.S. health care system, focusing on cost, reimbursement, and price transparency and the role of radiology in addressing such challenges. Medical imaging is a minor contributor to national health care expenditures but has an outsized impact on patient care. The radiology community should work together to reinforce the value of medical imaging and reduce inappropriate utilization of low-value care.

Health for All: A Report of the 2020 Association of American Medical Colleges Learn Serve Lead Meeting.

Learn Serve Lead (LSL) is the signature annual conference of the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), which focuses on the most pressing issues facing American medical practice and education. Unsurprisingly, the recent AAMC LSL conference at the end of 2020 centered on the multifaceted impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and racial inequity upon the medical community. At the LSL meeting, national leaders, practicing physicians from diverse specialties, and medical trainees discussed the impact of these challenges and ongoing strategies to overcome them. These efforts paralleled the AAMC mission areas of community collaborations, medical education, clinical care, and research. Additionally, this focus aligns with the ACR's core purpose: to serve patients and society by empowering members to advance the practice, science, and professions of radiological care. ACR is a member of the AAMC Council of Faculty and Academic Society and seeks to collaborate with other medical specialties to promote interdisciplinary collaboration, contribute to medical education, and voice the value of medical imaging for patient care. We summarize the major insights of this interdisciplinary conference and present tailored recommendations for applying these insights specifically within the radiology community. In addition, we review the parallels between the ACR and the AAMC strategic plans.

Shifting Spine Interventional Pain Injections From the Hospital to a Clinic Setting: Increased Efficiency and Decreased Health System Costs.

OBJECTIVE: Spine interventional pain injections have dramatically increased in volume in the past three decades. High referral volumes at our institution necessitated using both a hospital-based interventional suite and a clinic-based suite scheduled on a first-come, first-served basis. We sought to determine whether the clinic-based suite provided benefits in efficiency and health system cost in comparison with the hospital suite without compromising quality of care. METHODS: To investigate differences between outpatient procedures performed in hospital-based procedure rooms (HBPRs) and clinic-based procedure rooms (CBPRs), we reviewed all consecutive outpatient spine interventional pain procedures performed by the interventional neuroradiology service over a 12-month period. We analyzed procedure complexity, fluoroscopic times, procedural times, patient wait times, and health system costs for each case, as well as any complications. RESULTS: Our analysis demonstrated similar procedural complexity between sites with decreased average fluoroscopic time (112 seconds versus 163 seconds, P = .002), procedural time (17 min versus 28 min, P < .001), and wait time (20 min versus 38 min, P < .001) in the CBPR versus the HBPR. In cases without trainee involvement, procedural and wait times were decreased (P < .001, P = .008) with no difference in fluoroscopy time (P = .18). There were no complications at either site. The analysis of cost to the health system demonstrated that procedures in the HBPR cost >14 times the amount to perform than in the CBPR. DISCUSSION: Performing spine interventional pain procedures in a CBPR adds value by decreasing procedural, fluoroscopic, wait times, and health system cost compared with an HBPR without compromising safety.

Experiences of a Health System's Faculty, Staff, and Trainees' Career Development, Work Culture, and Childcare Needs During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: In March 2020, US public buildings (including schools) were shut down because of the COVID-19 pandemic, and 42% of US workers resumed their employment duties from home. Some shutdowns remain in place, yet the extent of the needs of US working parents is largely unknown. Objective: To identify and address the career development, work culture, and childcare needs of faculty, staff, and trainees at an academic medical center during a pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants: For this survey study, between August 5 and August 20, 2020, a Qualtrics survey was emailed to all faculty, staff, and trainees at University of Utah Health, an academic health care system that includes multiple hospitals, community clinics, and specialty centers. Participants included 27 700 University of Utah Health faculty, staff, and trainees who received a survey invitation. Data analysis was performed from August to November 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes included experiences of COVID-19 and their associations with career development, work culture, and childcare needs. Results: A total of 5030 participants completed the entire survey (mean [SD] age, 40 [12] years); 3738 (75%) were women; 4306 (86%) were White or European American; 561 (11%) were Latino or Latina (of any race), Black or African American, American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander; and 301 (6%) were Asian or Asian American. Of the participants, 2545 (51%) reported having clinical responsibilities, 2412 (48%) had at least 1 child aged 18 years or younger, 3316 (66%) were staff, 791 (16%) were faculty, and 640 (13%) were trainees. Nearly one-half of parents reported that parenting (1148 participants [49%]) and managing virtual education for children (1171 participants [50%]) were stressors. Across all participants, 1061 (21%) considered leaving the workforce, and 1505 (30%) considered reducing hours. Four hundred forty-nine faculty (55%) and 397 trainees (60%) perceived decreased productivity, and 2334 participants (47%) were worried about COVID-19 impacting their career development, with 421 trainees (64%) being highly concerned. Conclusions and Relevance: In this survey of 5030 faculty, staff, and trainees of a US health system, many participants with caregiving responsibilities, particularly women, faculty, trainees, and (in a subset of cases) those from racial/ethnic groups that underrepresented in medicine, considered leaving the workforce or reducing hours and were worried about their career development related to the pandemic. It is imperative that medical centers support their employees and trainees during this challenging time.

Prospective Employer-Initiated Whole-Body Cancer Screening-Costs and Outcomes of a Cancer Screening Program in Japan.

PURPOSES: To determine cancer detection and mortality and its costs associated with employee-initiated, prospective whole-body cancer screening program in an engineering company in Hamamatsu, Japan. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The program includes whole-body fluorine-18-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose PET/CT, brain and pelvis MR, and abdominal ultrasound, offered every 2 years five consecutive times. Employees are free to opt in or opt out anytime. The subjects were divided into the full (five consecutive screenings), partial (more than once and less than five), and no participation groups. The rate ratio of cancer detection rate and cancer-related mortality and cancer-related costs of care were measured. All employees also received other annual health screenings, including chest radiograph or upper gastrointestinal study. RESULTS: Among 1,213 subjects, 543 employees were under full participation, 318 were under partial participation, and 352 were under no participation. In all, 26, 9, and 19 cancers were detected from the full participation, partial participation, and nonparticipation groups, respectively. No statistical significance was observed in the cancer detection rate ratio. The rate ratio of cancer-related deaths was 0.11 (0.01-0.90) for the full participation group compared with the nonparticipation group, and the difference was statistically significant. The cost of cancer-related care was highest among the nonparticipation group; however, the difference was not statistically significant (P = .108). CONCLUSION: Whole-body cancer screening can successfully reduce cancer-related mortality and costs of cancer-related care. The cancer detection rate was not significantly improved because of broad implementation of additional annual health screenings offered to all employees at no cost, resulting in the high baseline cancer detection rate.

An Incentive to Innovate: Improving Health Care Value and Restoring Physician Autonomy Through Physician-Directed Reinvestment.

PROBLEM: Many health care systems in the United States are shifting from a fee-for-service reimbursement model to a value-based payment model. To remain competitive, health care administrators must engage frontline clinicians in their efforts to reduce costs and improve patient outcomes. Engaging physicians and other clinicians is challenging, however, as many feel overwhelmed with clinical responsibilities and do not view cost reduction as in their purview. Even if they are willing, providing a direct financial incentive to clinicians to control costs poses ethical and legal challenges. An effective incentive in the current system must motivate clinicians to engage in creative problem solving and mitigate ethical and legal risk. APPROACH: Evidence suggests the most successful behavior change interventions in physicians are multifaceted and combine intrinsic motivators, such as increased autonomy, with extrinsic motivators, such as access to funding or social recognition. Two academic health centers-the University of Utah Health and Stanford Health Care-have begun experimenting with an alternative value-sharing arrangement. Physician-directed reinvestment is an explicit agreement in which a health care system reinvests a portion of savings attributed to physician-led cost reduction initiatives back into areas of the physician's choosing, such as capital investment, research, or education. OUTCOMES: Both organizations reported similar positive outcomes, including increased engagement from clinicians and administrators, sustained or improved quality of care, reduced costs of care, and benefits from reinvested funds. Many savings opportunities were previously unknown to administrators. NEXT STEPS: Physician-directed reinvestment appears to effectively engage physicians in ongoing efforts to improve value in health care, although formal evaluation is still needed. This incentive structure may hold promise in other configurations, such as inviting nonphysicians to apply as project leaders (clinician-directed reinvestment) and expanding the program to nonacademic and ambulatory settings.

Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing in Radiology: An Overview.

Time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) is a cost-accounting method to assess operational costs at a process-specific level. The purpose of this review is to provide a foundational methodologic overview of TDABC and offer insights from lessons we have learned by applying TDABC in radiology. Understanding these principles can help radiology practice leaders maintain local cost-stewardship while delivering the highest quality of clinical care.

Price Transparency in Radiology-A Model for the Future.

Medicine is the only business transaction in which consumers make important purchase decisions without knowing how much they have to pay. Lack of price transparency in health care imposes financial burden and anxiety among patients as the cost of health care has been shifting from employers to patients through high-deductible health plans (HDHPs). Health economists and policymakers anticipated that HDHPs with price transparency would be a catalyst for patients to "shop" for low-price providers, thus reducing overall health care spending. For patients to shop health care services, price transparency is a requisite. The Department of Health and Human Services mandate of publicly disclosing the hospital chargemaster and state legislatures demanding greater health care price transparency are just two examples of external forces challenging the long history of price opacity in health care. Imaging, pharmacy, laboratory tests, and ambulatory surgeries are considered potentially shoppable health care services. This article examines the intended motivation of price transparency, the limitations of current price transparency tools, and what impact price transparency may have on radiology. We share our experience in developing and implementing University of Utah's online interactive price transparency tool to estimate patients' out-of-pocket expenses.

Assessing the Training Costs and Work of Diagnostic Radiology Residents Using Key Performance Indicators - An Observational Study.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To quantify the costs and work of diagnostic radiology (DR) residents using the radiology key performance indicator turn-around time (TAT) as the outcome measure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In an Institutional Review Board-approved study, the annual cost of a DR resident was determined using salary, benefits, and a cost allocation of faculty effort. The volume of cases reported in the 2015-16 academic year and median and interquartile range (IQR) TAT for a trainee preliminary (Complete to Prelim, C-P) or an attending final (Complete to Final, C-F) radiology report were measured and stratified by time of day and patient location. Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used (significance, p values < 0.05). RESULTS: The annual cost of a DR resident was $99,109, 34% greater than direct salary/benefits and 27% of the direct salary/benefits cost of an attending. The total per minute cost of rendering care was $4.36 with both trainee ($0.70/minute) and faculty ($3.66/minute). Residents participated in 139,084/235,417 (59%) imaging studies. The C-P TAT was 74 (IQR, 27-180) minutes compared to 51 (IQR, 18-129) minutes C-F TAT of faculty working alone and C-F TAT of 213 (IQR, 71-469) minutes with a resident (p < 0.001). The C-P TAT vs C-F TAT between 4 pm-9 am and weekends with residents is 44 (IQR, 18-119) minutes vs 60 (IQR, 18-179) minutes without. CONCLUSION: The cost of training DR residents exceeds the salary and benefits allocated to their training. Residents increase the absolute professional labor cost of caring for a patient. Overall TAT is slower with residents but the care delivered by residents after-hours is faster.

Cost Effectiveness of Assessing Ultrasound Plaque Characteristics to Risk Stratify Asymptomatic Patients With Carotid Stenosis.

Background Imaging may play an important role in identifying high-risk plaques in patients who have carotid disease and who could benefit from surgical revascularization. We sought to evaluate the cost effectiveness of a decision-making rule based on the ultrasound imaging assessment of plaque echolucency in patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis. Methods and Results We used a decision-analytic model to project lifetime quality-adjusted life years and costs for 5 stroke prevention strategies: (1) medical therapy only; (2) revascularization if both plaque echolucency and stenosis progression to >90% are present; (3) revascularization only if plaque echolucency is present; (4) revascularization only if stenosis progression >90% is present; or (5) either plaque echolucency or stenosis progression is present. Risks of clinical events, costs, and quality-of-life values were estimated based on published sources and the analysis was conducted from a healthcare system perspective for asymptomatic patients with 70% to 89% carotid stenosis at presentation. Patients who did not undergo revascularization had the highest stroke events (17.6%) and lowest life-years (8.45), while those who underwent revascularization on the basis of either presence of plaque echolucency on ultrasound or progression of carotid stenosis had the lowest stroke events (12.0%) and longest life-years (14.41). The either plaque echolucency or progression-based revascularization group had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $110 000/quality-adjusted life years compared with the plaque echolucency-based strategy, which had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $29 000/quality-adjusted life years compared with the joint echolucency and progression-based strategy. Conclusions Plaque echolucency on ultrasound can be a cost-effective tool to identify patients with asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis most likely to benefit from carotid endarterectomy.

Enhancing Value of MRI: A Call for Action.

As national healthcare spending has spiraled out of control, payment reform that moves from volume to value-based payment has been introduced as a practical solution. Under alternative value-based payment models, physicians and clinical teams must deliver the best care possible at a lower cost. Medical imaging has changed the way we diagnose disease, evaluate severity, assess treatment effects, and provide biological insights for the pathophysiology of many diseases. Over the past 50 years, imaging techniques have become increasingly advanced-from X-ray to computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), positron emission tomography (PET), and multi-modal imaging. Advanced imaging such as MRI has given clinicians remarkable insights into medical conditions and saved innumerable lives. Under the value proposition, however, we must ask if each imaging study changes treatment decisions, improves patient outcomes, and is cost-effective. Imaging research has been focused on developing new technologies and clinical applications to assess diagnostic accuracy. What is needed is the higher-level technology assessment. In this article we review why we need to demonstrate the value of MRI, how we define value, what strategies can enhance MR value through partnership with various stakeholders, and how imaging scientists can contribute to healthcare delivery in the future. Level of Evidence: 5 Technical Efficacy: Stage 3 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;49:e40-e48.

Value of MRI in medicine: More than just another test?

There is increasing scrutiny from healthcare organizations towards the utility and associated costs of imaging. MRI has traditionally been used as a high-end modality, and although shown extremely important for many types of clinical scenarios, it has been suggested as too expensive by some. This editorial will try and explain how value should be addressed and gives some insights and practical examples of how value of MRI can be increased. It requires a global effort to increase accessibility, value for money, and impact on patient management. We hope this editorial sheds some light and gives some indications of where the field may wish to address some of its research to proactively demonstrate the value of MRI. Level of Evidence: 5 Technical Efficacy: Stage 5 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;49:e14-e25.

Dissecting Costs of CT Study: Application of TDABC (Time-driven Activity-based Costing) in a Tertiary Academic Center.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The lack of understanding of the real costs (not charge) of delivering healthcare services poses tremendous challenges in the containment of healthcare costs. In this study, we applied an established cost accounting method, the time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC), to assess the costs of performing an abdomen and pelvis computed tomography (AP CT) in an academic radiology department and identified opportunities for improved efficiency in the delivery of this service. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was exempt from an institutional review board approval. TDABC utilizes process mapping tools from industrial engineering and activity-based costing. The process map outlines every step of discrete activity and duration of use of clinical resources, personnel, and equipment. By multiplying the cost per unit of capacity by the required task time for each step, and summing each component cost, the overall costs of AP CT is determined for patients in three settings, inpatient (IP), outpatient (OP), and emergency departments (ED). RESULTS: The component costs to deliver an AP CT study were as follows: radiologist interpretation: 40.1%; other personnel (scheduler, technologist, nurse, pharmacist, and transporter): 39.6%; materials: 13.9%; and space and equipment: 6.4%. The cost of performing CT was 13% higher for ED patients and 31% higher for inpatients (IP), as compared to that for OP. The difference in cost was mostly due to non-radiologist personnel costs. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 80% of the direct costs of AP CT to the academic medical center are related to labor. Potential opportunities to reduce the costs include increasing the efficiency of utilization of CT, substituting lower cost resources when appropriate, and streamlining the ordering system to clarify medical necessity and clinical indications.

Implementation of a Value-Driven Outcomes Program to Identify High Variability in Clinical Costs and Outcomes and Association With Reduced Cost and Improved Quality.

IMPORTANCE: Transformation of US health care from volume to value requires meaningful quantification of costs and outcomes at the level of individual patients. OBJECTIVE: To measure the association of a value-driven outcomes tool that allocates costs of care and quality measures to individual patient encounters with cost reduction and health outcome optimization. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Uncontrolled, pre-post, longitudinal, observational study measuring quality and outcomes relative to cost from 2012 to 2016 at University of Utah Health Care. Clinical improvement projects included total hip and knee joint replacement, hospitalist laboratory utilization, and management of sepsis. EXPOSURES: Physicians were given access to a tool with information about outcomes, costs (not charges), and variation and partnered with process improvement experts. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Total and component inpatient and outpatient direct costs across departments; cost variability for Medicare severity diagnosis related groups measured as coefficient of variation (CV); and care costs and composite quality indexes. RESULTS: From July 1, 2014, to June 30, 2015, there were 1.7 million total patient visits, including 34 000 inpatient discharges. Professional costs accounted for 24.3% of total costs for inpatient episodes ($114.4 million of $470.4 million) and 41.9% of total costs for outpatient visits ($231.7 million of $553.1 million). For Medicare severity diagnosis related groups with the highest total direct costs, cost variability was highest for postoperative infection (CV = 1.71) and sepsis (CV = 1.37) and among the lowest for organ transplantation (CV ≤ 0.43). For total joint replacement, a composite quality index was 54% at baseline (n = 233 encounters) and 80% 1 year into the implementation (n = 188 encounters) (absolute change, 26%; 95% CI, 18%-35%; P < .001). Compared with the baseline year, mean direct costs were 7% lower in the implementation year (95% CI, 3%-11%; P < .001) and 11% lower in the postimplementation year (95% CI, 7%-14%; P < .001). The hospitalist laboratory testing mean cost per day was $138 (median [IQR], $113 [$79-160]; n = 2034 encounters) at baseline and $123 (median [IQR], $99 [$66-147]; n = 4276 encounters) in the evaluation period (mean difference, -$15; 95% CI, -$19 to -$11; P < .001), with no significant change in mean length of stay. For a pilot sepsis intervention, the mean time to anti-infective administration following fulfillment of systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria in patients with infection was 7.8 hours (median [IQR], 3.4 [0.8-7.8] hours; n = 29 encounters) at baseline and 3.6 hours (median [IQR], 2.2 [1.0-4.5] hours; n = 76 encounters) in the evaluation period (mean difference, -4.1 hours; 95% CI, -9.9 to -1.0 hours; P = .02). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Implementation of a multifaceted value-driven outcomes tool to identify high variability in costs and outcomes in a large single health care system was associated with reduced costs and improved quality for 3 selected clinical projects. There may be benefit for individual physicians to understand actual care costs (not charges) and outcomes achieved for individual patients with defined clinical conditions.

Toward Quantifying the Prevalence, Severity, and Cost Associated With Patient Motion During Clinical MR Examinations.

PURPOSE: To assess the prevalence, severity, and cost estimates associated with motion artifacts identified on clinical MR examinations, with a focus on the neuroaxis. METHODS: A retrospective review of 1 randomly selected full calendar week of MR examinations (April 2014) was conducted for the detection of significant motion artifacts in examinations performed at a single institution on 3 different MR scanners. A base-case cost estimate was computed from recently available institutional data, and correlated with sequence time and severity of motion artifacts. RESULTS: A total of 192 completed clinical examinations were reviewed. Significant motion artifacts were identified on sequences in 7.5% of outpatient and 29.4% of inpatient and/or emergency department MR examinations. The prevalence of repeat sequences was 19.8% of total MRI examinations. The base-case cost estimate yielded a potential cost to the hospital of $592 per hour in lost revenue due to motion artifacts. Potential institutional average costs borne (revenue forgone) of approximately $115,000 per scanner per year may affect hospitals, owing to motion artifacts (univariate sensitivity analysis suggested a lower bound of $92,600, and an upper bound of $139,000). CONCLUSIONS: Motion artifacts represent a frequent cause of MR image degradation, particularly for inpatient and emergency department patients, resulting in substantial costs to the radiology department. Greater attention and resources should be directed toward providing practical solutions to this dilemma.

Accuracy of preliminary interpretation of neurologic CT examinations by on-call radiology residents and assessment of patient outcomes at a level I trauma center.

PURPOSE: The aims of this study were to evaluate the accuracy of preliminary interpretations of emergency neurologic CT scans after hours by on-call radiology residents and to assess the clinical impact of residents' errors at a level I trauma center. METHODS: A quality assurance database of neurologic CT examinations was reviewed to compare preliminary interpretations by on-call residents with final analyses by attending neuroradiologists during a 12-month period. All disagreements were reviewed for confirmation of the findings and categorized as significant or nonsignificant. Significant errors were further classified as acute intracranial, acute extracranial, and nonacute. Medical records for scans with significant errors were reviewed to evaluate any negative impact on the patient for each significant case. Residents' postgraduate years were also recorded. RESULTS: There were 252 cases (3.7%) with disagreements among 6,852 total cases. Of those, 226 (3.3%) were confirmed as resident errors, which included 171 (2.5%) that were significant. There were 73 (1.1%) acute intracranial, 77 (1.1%) acute extracranial, and 21 (0.3%) nonacute misinterpretations. Among the 171 significant cases, 105 (1.5%) had no changes in clinical management, and 55 (0.8%) required some changes. CONCLUSION: The rate of significant errors by on-call radiology residents was low. These errors had a minimal impact on clinical outcomes. Continued monitoring of residents' performance is important to maintain or improve patient safety.