0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Effect of team training on improving MRI study completion rates and no-show rates : Improving MRI Study Completion Rates

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          <div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="S1"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d5619978e208">Purpose</h5> <p id="P1">MR is a high-cost imaging modality, and an optimized encounter ideally provides high quality care, patient satisfaction and capacity utilization. Our purpose was to assess the effectiveness of team training and its impact on patient show-up and completion rates for their MRI examinations. </p> </div><div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="S2"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d5619978e213">Methods</h5> <p id="P2">A total of 97,712 patient visits from 3 tertiary academic medical centers over one-year intervals were evaluated, totaling 49,733 visits at baseline and 47,979 after training. Each centers’ MRI team received team training skill training including advanced communication and team training techniques training. This training included onsite instruction including case simulation with scenarios requiring appropriate behavioral and communicative interventions. Orientation and training also utilized customized online tools, and proctoring. The study completion rate and patient show-up rate during consecutive year-long intervals before and after team training were compared to assess its effectiveness. Two-sided Chi-Square tests for proportions using were applied at a 0.05 significance level. </p> </div><div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="S3"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d5619978e218">Results</h5> <p id="P3">Despite differing no-show rates (5–22.2%) and study incompletions rates (0.7–3.7%) at the three academic centers, the combined patients’ data showed significant (p&lt;0.0001) improvement in the patients’ no-show rates (combined decreases from 11.2% to 8.7%) and incompletion rates (combined decreases from 2.3 to 1.4%). </p> </div><div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="S4"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d5619978e223">Conclusion</h5> <p id="P4">Our preliminary results suggest training of imaging team can improve the no-show and incompletion rates of the MRI service, positively affecting throughput and utilization. Team training can be readily implemented and may help address the needs of the current cost-conscious and consumer sensitive healthcare environment. </p> </div>

          Related collections

          Most cited references15

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Adjunctive non-pharmacological analgesia for invasive medical procedures: a randomised trial.

          Non-pharmacological behavioural adjuncts have been suggested as efficient safe means in reducing discomfort and adverse effects during medical procedures. We tested this assumption for patients undergoing percutaneous vascular and renal procedures in a prospective, randomised, single-centre study. 241 patients were randomised to receive intraoperatively standard care (n=79), structured attention (n=80), or self-hypnotic relaxation (n=82). All had access to patient-controlled intravenous analgesia with fentanyl and midazolam. Patients rated their pain and anxiety on 0-10 scales before, every 15 min during and after the procedures. Pain increased linearly with procedure time in the standard group (slope 0.09 in pain score/15 min, p<0.0001), and the attention group (slope 0.04/15 min; p=0.0425), but remained flat in the hypnosis group. Anxiety decreased over time in all three groups with slopes of -0.04 (standard), -0.07 (attention), and -0.11 (hypnosis). Drug use in the standard group (1.9 units) was significantly higher than in the attention and hypnosis groups (0.8 and 0.9 units, respectively). One hypnosis patient became haemodynamically unstable compared with ten attention patients (p=0.0041), and 12 standard patients (p=0.0009). Procedure times were significantly shorter in the hypnosis group (61 min) than in the standard group (78 min, p=0.0016) with procedure duration of the attention group in between (67 min). Structured attention and self-hypnotic relaxation proved beneficial during invasive medical procedures. Hypnosis had more pronounced effects on pain and anxiety reduction, and is superior, in that it also improves haemodynamic stability.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

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

            To assess the prevalence, severity, and cost estimates associated with motion artifacts identified on clinical MR examinations, with a focus on the neuroaxis.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Adjunctive self-hypnotic relaxation for outpatient medical procedures: a prospective randomized trial with women undergoing large core breast biopsy.

              Medical procedures in outpatient settings have limited options of managing pain and anxiety pharmacologically. We therefore assessed whether this can be achieved by adjunct self-hypnotic relaxation in a common and particularly anxiety provoking procedure. Two hundred and thirty-six women referred for large core needle breast biopsy to an urban tertiary university-affiliated medical center were prospectively randomized to receive standard care (n=76), structured empathic attention (n=82), or self-hypnotic relaxation (n=78) during their procedures. Patients' self-ratings at 1 min-intervals of pain and anxiety on 0-10 verbal analog scales with 0=no pain/anxiety at all, 10=worst pain/anxiety possible, were compared in an ordinal logistic regression model. Women's anxiety increased significantly in the standard group (logit slope=0.18, p<0.001), did not change in the empathy group (slope=-0.04, p=0.45), and decreased significantly in the hypnosis group (slope=-0.27, p<0.001). Pain increased significantly in all three groups (logit slopes: standard care=0.53, empathy=0.37, hypnosis=0.34; all p<0.001) though less steeply with hypnosis and empathy than standard care (p=0.024 and p=0.018, respectively). Room time and cost were not significantly different in an univariate ANOVA despite hypnosis and empathy requiring an additional professional: 46 min/161 dollars for standard care, 43 min/163 dollars for empathy, and 39 min/152 dollars for hypnosis. We conclude that, while both structured empathy and hypnosis decrease procedural pain and anxiety, hypnosis provides more powerful anxiety relief without undue cost and thus appears attractive for outpatient pain management.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging
                J. Magn. Reson. Imaging
                Wiley
                10531807
                October 2016
                October 2016
                April 06 2016
                : 44
                : 4
                : 1040-1047
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Radiology; Boston University; Boston Massachusetts USA
                [2 ]Department of Radiology; Tufts University; Medford Massachusetts USA
                [3 ]Department of Radiology; Ohio State University School of Medicine; Columbus Ohio USA
                [4 ]Department of Radiology; University of Washington; Seattle Washington USA
                [5 ]Hypnalgesics Inc; Brookline Massachusetts USA
                [6 ]School of Public Health; Boston University; Boston Massachusetts USA
                [7 ]Chair, Department of Radiation Oncology; University of Washington School of Medicine
                Article
                10.1002/jmri.25219
                5612491
                27126735
                e585d8ba-c1e3-4255-9236-d789af84dc67
                © 2016

                http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1.1

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article