Policies and Guidelines for COVID-19 Preparedness: Experiences from the University of Washington.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic initially manifested in the United States in the greater Seattle area and has rapidly progressed across the nation in the past 2 months, with the United States having the highest number of cases in the world. Radiology departments play a critical role in policy and guideline development both for the department and for the institutions, specifically in planning diagnostic screening, triage, and management of patients. In addition, radiology workflows, volumes, and access must be optimized in preparation for the expected surges in the number of patients with COVID-19. In this article, the authors discuss the processes that have been implemented at the University of Washington in managing the COVID-19 pandemic as well in preparing for patient surges, which may provide important guidance for other radiology departments who are in the early stages of preparation and management.

A case-based approach to outpatient evaluation and management service coding.

Understanding Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) documentation and coding rules is challenging for most physicians. To accurately bill for clinical services, physicians must learn a system that may initially seem daunting, but is in fact governed by a small number of straightforward rules. The Evaluation and Management (E/M) guidelines for all service codes specify 3 components: history, examination, and medical decision-making, each with a defined set of elements or characteristics. Service coding is based on the level of care supported by the number of history and examination elements and the complexity of decision-making. This article will clarify the guidelines for outpatient clinical services and suggest a practical method of selecting appropriate E/M codes. Because physicians must often choose between billing codes 99213 and 99214 for a visit by an established patient, it will particularly focus on the minimum documentation needed to bill a 99214 code.

Rapid magnetic resonance imaging vs radiographs for patients with low back pain: a randomized controlled trial.

CONTEXT: Faster magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanning has made MRI a potential cost-effective replacement for radiographs for patients with low back pain. However, whether rapid MRI scanning results in better patient outcomes than radiographic evaluation or a cost-effective alternative is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical and economic consequences of replacing spine radiographs with rapid MRI for primary care patients. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Randomized controlled trial of 380 patients aged 18 years or older whose primary physicians had ordered that their low back pain be evaluated by radiographs. The patients were recruited between November 1998 and June 2000 from 1 of 4 imaging centers in the Seattle, Wash, area: a university-based teaching program, a nonuniversity-based teaching program, and 2 private clinics. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomly assigned to receive lumbar spine evaluation by rapid MRI or by radiograph. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Back-related disability measured by the modified Roland questionnaire. Secondary outcomes included Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), pain, preference scores, satisfaction, and costs. RESULTS: At 12 months, primary outcomes of functional disability were obtained from 337 (89%) of the 380 patients enrolled. The mean back-related disability modified Roland score for the 170 patients assigned to the radiograph evaluation group was 8.75 vs 9.34 for the 167 patients assigned the rapid MRI evaluation group (mean difference, -0.59; 95% CI, -1.69 to 0.87). The mean differences in the secondary outcomes were not statistically significant : pain bothersomeness (0.07; 95% CI -0.88 to 1.22), pain frequency (0.12; 95% CI, -0.69 to 1.37), and SF-36 subscales of bodily pain (1.25; 95% CI, -4.46 to 4.96), and physical functioning (2.73, 95% CI -4.09 to 6.22). Ten patients in the rapid MRI group vs 4 in the radiograph group had lumbar spine operations (risk difference, 0.34; 95% CI, -0.06 to 0.73). The rapid MRI strategy had a mean cost of 2380 dollars vs 2059 dollars for the radiograph strategy (mean difference, 321 dollars; 95% CI, -1100 to 458). CONCLUSIONS: Rapid MRIs and radiographs resulted in nearly identical outcomes for primary care patients with low back pain. Although physicians and patients preferred the rapid MRI, substituting rapid MRI for radiographic evaluations in the primary care setting may offer little additional benefit to patients, and it may increase the costs of care because of the increased number of spine operations that patients are likely to undergo.