The impact of introducing a no oral contrast abdominopelvic CT examination (NOCAPE) pathway on radiology turn around times, emergency department length of stay, and patient safety

Emergency Radiology - 2014
Seyed Amirhossein Razavi1, Jamlik-Omari Johnson2, Michael T. Kassin3, Kimberly E. Applegate3
1Department of Surgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, USA
2Division of Emergency Radiology, Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, USA
3Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, USA

Tóm tắt

This investigation evaluates the impact of the no oral contrast abdominopelvic CT examination (NOCAPE) on radiology turn around time (TAT), emergency department (ED) length of stay (LOS), and patient safety metrics. During a 12-month period at two urban teaching hospitals, 6,409 ED abdominopelvic (AP) CTs were performed to evaluate acute abdominal pain. NOCAPE represented 70.9 % of all ED AP CT examinations with intravenous contrast. Data collection included patient demographics, use of intravenous (IV) and/or oral contrast, order to complete and order to final interpretation TAT, ED LOS, admission, recall and bounce back rates, and comparison and characterization of impressions. The NOCAPE pathway reduced median order to complete TAT by 32 min (22.9 %) compared to IV and oral contrast AP CT examinations (traditional pathway) (P < 0.001). Median order to final TAT was 2.9 h in NOCAPE patients and 3.5 h in the traditional pathway, a 36-min (17.1 %) reduction (P < 0.001). Overall, the NOCAPE pathway reduced ED LOS by a median of 43 min (8.8 %) compared to the traditional pathway (8.2 vs 7.5 h) (P = 0.003). Recall and bounce back rates were 3.2 %, and only one patient had change in impression after oral contrast CT was repeated. The NOCAPE pathway is associated with decreased radiology TAT and ED LOS metrics. The authors suggest that NOCAPE implementation in the ED setting is safe and positively impacts both radiology and emergency medicine workflow.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

Rosen MP, Sands DZ, Longmaid HE 3rd et al (2000) Impact of abdominal CT on the management of patients presenting to the emergency department with acute abdominal pain. AJR Am J Roentgenol 174(5):1391–1396

Lee SI, Chew FS (1998) 1998 ARRS Executive Council Award. Radiology in the emergency department: technique for quantitative description of use and results. American Roentgen Ray Society. AJR Am J Roentgenol 171(3):559–564

Broder J, Warshauer DM (2006) Increasing utilization of computed tomography in the adult emergency department, 2000-2005. Emerg Radiol 13(1):25–30

Joyce WP, Delaney PV, Gorey TF et al (1992) The value of water-soluble contrast radiology in the management of acute small bowel obstruction. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 74(6):422–425

Lonnemark M, Magnusson A, Ahlstrom H (1993) Oral contrast media in CT of the abdomen. A double-blind randomized study comparing an aqueous solution of amidotrizoate, an aqueous solution of iohexol and a viscous solution of iohexol. Acta Radiol 34(5):517–519

Malone AJ Jr, Wolf CR, Malmed AS et al (1993) Diagnosis of acute appendicitis: value of unenhanced CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 160(4):763–766

Anderson BA, Salem L, Flum DR (2005) A systematic review of whether oral contrast is necessary for the computed tomography diagnosis of appendicitis in adults. Am J Surg 190(3):474–478

Lee SY, Coughlin B, Wolfe JM et al (2006) Prospective comparison of helical CT of the abdomen and pelvis without and with oral contrast in assessing acute abdominal pain in adult Emergency Department patients. Emerg Radiol 12(4):150–157

Tamburrini S, Brunetti A, Brown M et al (2007) Acute appendicitis: diagnostic value of nonenhanced CT with selective use of contrast in routine clinical settings. Eur Radiol 17(8):2055–2061

Lane MJ, Liu DM, Huynh MD et al (1999) Suspected acute appendicitis: nonenhanced helical CT in 300 consecutive patients. Radiology 213(2):341–346

Peck J, Peck A, Peck C et al (2000) The clinical role of noncontrast helical computed tomography in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Am J Surg 180(2):133–136

Hill BC, Johnson SC, Owens EK et al (2010) CT scan for suspected acute abdominal process: impact of combinations of IV, oral, and rectal contrast. World J Surg 34(4):699–703

Lee CH, Haaland B, Earnest A et al (2013) Use of positive oral contrast agents in abdominopelvic computed tomography for blunt abdominal injury: meta-analysis and systematic review. Eur Radiol 23(9):2513–2521

Levenson RB, Camacho MA, Horn E et al (2012) Eliminating routine oral contrast use for CT in the emergency department: impact on patient throughput and diagnosis. Emerg Radiol 19(6):513–517

Laituri CA, Fraser JD, Aguayo P et al (2011) The lack of efficacy for oral contrast in the diagnosis of appendicitis by computed tomography. J Surg Res 170(1):100–103

Kepner AM, Bacasnot JV, Stahlman BA (2012) Intravenous contrast alone vs intravenous and oral contrast computed tomography for the diagnosis of appendicitis in adult ED patients. Am J Emerg Med 30(9):1765–1773

Anderson SW, Soto JA, Lucey BC et al (2009) Abdominal 64-MDCT for suspected appendicitis: the use of oral and IV contrast material versus IV contrast material only. AJR Am J Roentgenol 193(5):1282–1288

Anderson SW, Rhea JT, Milch HN et al (2010) Influence of body habitus and use of oral contrast on reader confidence in patients with suspected acute appendicitis using 64 MDCT. Emerg Radiol 17(6):445–453

Lane MJ, Katz DS, Ross BA et al (1997) Unenhanced helical CT for suspected acute appendicitis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 168(2):405–409

Schuur JD, Chu G, Sucov A (2010) Effect of oral contrast for abdominal computed tomography on emergency department length of stay. Emerg Radiol 17(4):267–273

Guillerman RP, Brody AS, Kraus SJ (2002) Evidence-based guidelines for pediatric imaging: the example of the child with possible appendicitis. Pediatr Ann 31(10):629–640

Peterson CM, Lin M, Pilgram T et al (2011) Prospective randomized trial of iohexol 350 versus meglumine sodium diatrizoate as an oral contrast agent for abdominopelvic computed tomography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 35(2):202–205

Huynh LN, Coughlin BF, Wolfe J et al (2004) Patient encounter time intervals in the evaluation of emergency department patients requiring abdominopelvic CT: oral contrast versus no contrast. Emerg Radiol 10(6):310–313

Lee SL, Walsh AJ, Ho HS (2001) Computed tomography and ultrasonography do not improve and may delay the diagnosis and treatment of acute appendicitis. Arch Surg 136(5):556–562

Giuliano V, Giuliano C, Pinto F et al (2005) CT method for visualization of the appendix using a fixed oral dosage of diatrizoate—clinical experience in 525 cases. Emerg Radiol 11(5):281–285

Mitchell DG, Parker L, Sunshine JH et al (2002) Body MR imaging and CT volume: variations and trends based on an analysis of medicare and fee-for-service health insurance databases. AJR Am J Roentgenol 179(1):27–31

Trzeciak S, Rivers EP (2003) Emergency department overcrowding in the United States: an emerging threat to patient safety and public health. Emerg Med J 20(5):402–405

Schull MJ, Szalai JP, Schwartz B et al (2001) Emergency department overcrowding following systematic hospital restructuring: trends at twenty hospitals over ten years. Acad Emerg Med 8(11):1037–1043

Horton KM, Fishman EK, Gayler B (2008) The use of iohexol as oral contrast for computed tomography of the abdomen and pelvis. J Comput Assist Tomogr 32(2):207–209

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Emergency Radiology

Thông tin tác giả