Correlating the Radiological Assessment of Patient Motion with the Incidence of Repeat Sequences Documented by Log Files.

OBJECTIVE: To correlate a radiological assessment of MR motion artifacts with the incidence of repeated sequences and delays derived from modality log files (MLFs) and investigate the suitability of log files for quantifying the operational impact of patient motion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An experienced, blinded neuroradiologist retrospectively evaluated one full calendar month of sequentially obtained clinical MR exams of the head and/or brain for the presence of motion artifacts using a previously defined clinical grading scale. MLF data were analyzed to extract the occurrence of repeated sequences during the examinations. Statistical analysis included the determination of 95% confidence intervals for repetition ratios, and Welch's t-test to exclude the hypothesis of equal means for different groups of sequences. RESULTS: A total of 213 examinations were evaluated, comprising 1681 MLF-documented sequences, from which 1580 were archived. Radiological motion assessment scores (0, none to 4, severe) were assigned to each archived sequence. Higher motion scores correlated with a higher MLF-derived repetition probability, reflected by the average motion scores assigned to sequences that would be repeated (group 1, mean=2.5), those that are a repeat (group 2, mean=1.9), and those that are not repeated (group 3, mean=1.1) within an exam. The hypothesis of equal means was rejected with P = 5.9 × 10-5 for groups 1 and 2, P = 9.39 × 10-16 for groups 1 and 3, and P = 1.55 × 10-12 for groups 2 and 3. The repetition probability and associated time loss could be quantified for individual sequence types. The total time loss due to repeat sequence acquisition derived from MLFs was greater than four hours. CONCLUSION: Log file data may help assess patterns of scanner and exam performance and may be useful in identifying pitfalls to diagnostic imaging in a clinical environment, particularly with respect to patient motion.

Is There a Difference Between LI-RADS 3 to LI-RADS 5 Progression Assessment Using CT Versus MR? A Retrospective, Single-Center, Longitudinal Study of Patients Who Underwent 5082 Radiologic Examinations for Surveillance of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Over a 43-Month Period.

OBJECTIVE: The Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) has been widely applied to CT and MR liver observations in patients at high-risk for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We investigated the impact of CT vs MR in upgrading LI-RADS 3 to LI-RADS 5 observations using a large cohort of high-risk patients. METHODS: We performed a retrospective, longitudinal study of CT and MR radiographic reports (June 2013 - February 2017) with an assigned LI-RADS category. A final population of 757 individual scans and 212 high-risk patients had at least one LI-RADS 3 observation. Differences in observation time to progression between modalities were determined using uni- and multivariable analysis. RESULTS: Of the 212 patients with a LI-RADS 3 observation, 52 (25%) had progression to LI-RADS 5. Tp ranged from 64 - 818 days (median: 196 days). One hundred and three patients (49%) had MR and 109 patients (51%) had CT as their index study. Twenty-four patients with an MR index exam progressed to LI-RADS 5 during the follow-up interval, with progression rates of 22% (CI:13%-30%) at 1 year and 29% (CI:17%-40%) at 2 years. Twenty-eight patients with a CT index exam progressed to LI-RADS 5 during follow-up, with progression rates of 26% (CI:16%-35%) at 1 year and 31% (CI:19%-41%) at 2 years. Progression rates were not significantly different between patients whose LI-RADS 3 observation was initially diagnosed on MR vs CT (HR: 0.81, P = 0.44). DISCUSSION: MR and CT modalities are comparable for demonstrating progression from LI-RADS 3 to 5 for high risk patients.

Environmental Factors Predictive of No-Show Visits in Radiology: Observations of Three Million Outpatient Imaging Visits Over 16 Years.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of environmental and socioeconomic factors on outpatient cancellations and "no-show visits" (NSVs) in radiology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis by collecting environmental factor data related to outpatient radiology visits occurring between 2000 and 2015 at our multihospital academic institution. Appointment attendance records were joined with daily weather observations from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and estimated median income from the US Census American Community Survey. A multivariate logistic regression model was built to examine relationships between NSV rate and median income, commute distance, maximum daily temperature, and daily snowfall. RESULTS: There were 270,574 (8.0%) cancellations and 87,407 (2.6%) NSVs among 3,379,947 scheduled outpatient radiology appointments and 575,206 unique patients from 2000 to 2015. Overall cancellation rates decreased from 14% to 8%, and NSV rates decreased from 6% to 1% as median income increased from $20,000 to $120,000 per year. In a multivariate model, the odds of NSV decreased 10.7% per $10,000 increase in median income (95% confidence interval [CI]: 10.3%-11.1%) and 2.0% per 10°F increase in maximum daily temperature (95% CI: 1.3%-1.6%). The odds of NSV increased 1.4% per 10-mile increase in commute distance (95% CI: 1.3%-1.6%) and 4.5% per 1-inch increase in daily snowfall (95% CI: 3.6%-5.3%). Commute distance was more strongly associated with NSV for those in the two lower tertiles of income than the highest tertile (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Environmental factors are strongly associated with patients' attendance at scheduled outpatient radiology examinations. Modeling of appointment failure risk based on environmental features can help increase the attendance of outpatient radiology appointments.

A model to determine payments associated with radiology procedures.

OBJECTIVE: Across the United States, there is a growing number of patients in Accountable Care Organizations and under risk contracts with commercial insurance. This is due to proliferation of new value-based payment models and care delivery reform efforts. In this context, the business model of radiology within a hospital or health system context is shifting from a primary profit-center to a cost-center with a goal of cost savings. Radiology departments need to increasingly understand how the transactional nature of the business relates to financial rewards. The main challenge with current reporting systems is that the information is presented only at an aggregated level, and often not broken down further, for instance, by type of exam. As such, the primary objective of this research is to provide better visibility into payments associated with individual radiology procedures in order to better calibrate expense/capital structure of the imaging enterprise to the actual revenue or value-add to the organization it belongs to. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We propose a methodology that can be used to determine technical payments at a procedure level. We use a proportion based model to allocate payments to individual radiology procedures based on total charges (which also includes non-radiology related charges). RESULTS: Using a production dataset containing 424,250 radiology exams we calculated the overall average technical charge for Radiology to be $873.08 per procedure and the corresponding average payment to be $326.43 (range: $48.27 for XR and $2750.11 for PET/CT) resulting in an average payment percentage of 37.39% across all exams. DISCUSSION: We describe how charges associated with a procedure can be used to approximate technical payments at a more granular level with a focus on Radiology. The methodology is generalizable to approximate payment for other services as well. Understanding payments associated with each procedure can be useful during strategic practice planning. CONCLUSIONS: Charge-to-total charge ratio can be used to approximate radiology payments at a procedure level.

Inpatient Complexity in Radiology-a Practical Application of the Case Mix Index Metric.

With ongoing healthcare payment reforms in the USA, radiology is moving from its current state of a revenue generating department to a new reality of a cost-center. Under bundled payment methods, radiology does not get reimbursed for each and every inpatient procedure, but rather, the hospital gets reimbursed for the entire hospital stay under an applicable diagnosis-related group code. The hospital case mix index (CMI) metric, as defined by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, has a significant impact on how much hospitals get reimbursed for an inpatient stay. Oftentimes, patients with the highest disease acuity are treated in tertiary care radiology departments. Therefore, the average hospital CMI based on the entire inpatient population may not be adequate to determine department-level resource utilization, such as the number of technologists and nurses, as case length and staffing intensity gets quite high for sicker patients. In this study, we determine CMI for the overall radiology department in a tertiary care setting based on inpatients undergoing radiology procedures. Between April and September 2015, CMI for radiology was 1.93. With an average of 2.81, interventional neuroradiology had the highest CMI out of the ten radiology sections. CMI was consistently higher across seven of the radiology sections than the average hospital CMI of 1.81. Our results suggest that inpatients undergoing radiology procedures were on average more complex in this hospital setting during the time period considered. This finding is relevant for accurate calculation of labor analytics and other predictive resource utilization tools.

Provider assessment of eligibility for hepatitis C treatment in HIV-infected homeless and marginally housed persons.

PURPOSE: To characterize the group of providers delivering medical care to HIV and hepatitis C (HCV) co-infected homeless and marginally housed individuals in San Francisco and to assess factors affecting provider decisions to initiate HCV treatment in this population. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The Research in Access to Care for the Homeless (REACH) cohort is a representative sample of HIV-infected homeless and marginally housed individuals identified from single room occupancy hotels, homeless shelters and free lunch programs in San Francisco. Primary care providers (PCP) for active, HIV/HCV co-infected REACH cohort participants were administered face-to-face, semi-structured interviews. REACH participants were administered quarterly face-to-face structured interviews. RESULTS: 52/62 (83.9%) providers were interviewed regarding 133/155 (85.8%) active, HIV/HCV co-infected patients. Providers classified 94/133 (70.7%) patients as ineligible for HCV treatment. The mean number of reasons for ineligibility was 3.2. Most frequent reasons for provider determination of ineligibility included likelihood of poor medication adherence, depression, active injection drug use and patient disinterest in treatment. In addition, structural barriers to treatment included poor access to testing, delays in evaluation by a gastroenterologist and exclusion from treatment of patients with comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS: While HCV infection is common, HCV treatment is rare in the HIV/HCV coinfected urban poor. On average, the PCP in this study are experienced and are familiar with this patient population. There are many reasons for providers classifying patients as ineligible for HCV treatment. While these reasons indicate that treatment is difficult given chaotic lifestyle and concurrent medical conditions of this population, they are not insurmountable barriers. New treatments and strategies are necessary to treat this population with high rates of hepatitis C infection.