Effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on emergency department utilization of computed tomography scans of appendicitis and diverticulitis.

PURPOSE: Investigating the effect of the COVID-19 lockdown on adult patient visits, computed tomography (CT) abdominal scans, and presentations of appendicitis and diverticulitis, to emergency departments (ED) in St. John's NL. METHODS: A retrospective quantitative analysis was applied, using ED visits and Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS) scores. mPower (Nuance Communications, UK) identified CT abdominal scan reports, which were categorized into (1) normal/other, (2) appendicitis, or (3) diverticulitis. Time intervals included pre-lockdown (January-February), lockdown (March-June), and post-lockdown (July-August). Data from 2018 to 2019 (January-August) were used to generate expected patient volumes for 2020, and pre- and post-lockdown were included to control for other variables outside the lockdown. RESULTS: Chi-squared goodness of fit tested for deviations from predicted means for 2018-2019. Compared to expectations, daily ED visits from January to August 2020 showed a significant (p < 0.001) decrease in patient volumes independent of gender, age, and CTAS scores. During and post-lockdown, CT abdominal scans did not drop in proportion to patient volume. Appendicitis presentations remained indifferent to lockdown, while diverticulitis presentations appeared to wane, with no difference in combined complicated cases in comparison to what was expected. CONCLUSION: During lockdown, significantly fewer patients presented to the ED. The proportion of ordered CT abdominal scans increased significantly per person seen, without change in CTAS scores. Considering combined pathology cases increased during the lockdown, ED physicians were warranted in increasing abdominal imaging as patients did not avoid the ED. This may have resulted from a change in clinical practice where the uncertainty of COVID-19 increased CT scan usage.

Impact of the COVID pandemic on emergency department CT utilization: where do we go from here?

PURPOSE: To analyze the impact of the coronavirus disease (COVID) pandemic on emergency department (ED) computed tomography (CT) utilization. METHODS: A retrospective observational study was conducted assessing seven hospitals' ED imaging volumes between Jan. 6, 2019, and Feb. 27, 2021. Weekly CT utilization is reported as CTs ordered per 100 ED visits. Utilization was ascertained in aggregate and by body area. Interrupted time series analysis was performed to assess significance of utilization change. Prespecified sensitivity analysis was performed for influenza-like or COVID-like illness (ILI/CLI). RESULTS: Weekly ED CT utilization increased from 35.9 CTs per 100 visits (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 35.8-36.1) to 41.8 per 100 visits (95% CI 41.7-42.0) in pre- and post-pandemic periods. Weekly ED CT chest utilization increased immediately following the pandemic declaration (+ 0.52 chest CTs per 100 ED visits, 95% CI 0.01-1.03, p < 0.05) and compared to pre-pandemic period (+ 0.02 per 100 ED visits, 95% CI 0.02-0.05, p < 0.02). For both CT abdomen/pelvis and CT head, there was neither an immediate effect (+ 0.34 CT-AP per 100 ED visits, 95% CI - 0.74 to 1.44, p = 0.89; - 0.42 CT-H per 100 ED visits, 95% CI - 1.53 to 0.70, p = 0.46) nor a change in weekly CT utilization (+ 0.03 CT-AP per 100 ED visits, 95% CI - 0.01 to 0.05, p = 0.09; + 0.03 CT-H per 100 ED visits, 95% CI - 0.01 to 0.06, p = 0.10).  CONCLUSION: These data may help formulate future strategies for resource utilization and imaging operations as we envision a future with COVID and other federal mandates affecting imaging utilization and appropriateness.

Radiology Imaging Volume Changes During Discrete COVID-19 Pandemic Waves: Implications for the Delta Variant of Coronavirus and Future Pandemics.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate radiology imaging volumes at distinct time periods throughout the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic as a function of regional COVID-19 hospitalizations. METHODS: Radiology imaging volumes and statewide COVID-19 hospitalizations were collected, and four 28-day time periods throughout the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020 were analyzed: pre-COVID-19 in January, the "first wave" of COVID-19 hospitalizations in April, the "recovery" time period in the summer of 2020 with a relative nadir of COVID-19 hospitalizations, and the "third wave" of COVID-19 hospitalizations in November. Imaging studies were categorized as inpatient, outpatient, or emergency department on the basis of patient location at the time of acquisition. A Mann-Whitney U test was performed to compare daily imaging volumes during each discrete 28-day time period. RESULTS: Imaging volumes overall during the first wave of COVID-19 infections were 55% (11,098/20,011; P < .001) of pre-COVID-19 imaging volumes. Overall imaging volumes returned during the recovery time period to 99% (19,915/20,011; P = .725), and third-wave imaging volumes compared with the pre-COVID-19 period were significantly lower in the emergency department at 88.8% (7,951/8,955; P < .001), significantly higher for outpatients at 115.7% (8,818/7,621; P = .008), not significantly different for inpatients at 106% (3,650/3,435; P = .053), and overall unchanged when aggregated together at 102% (20,419/20,011; P = .629). CONCLUSIONS: Medical imaging rebounded after the first wave of COVID-19 hospitalizations, with relative stability of utilization over the ensuing phases of the pandemic. As widespread COVID-19 vaccination continues to occur, future surges in COVID-19 hospitalizations will likely have a negligible impact on imaging utilization.

COVID-19 infection in the cancer population: a study of emergency department imaging utilization and findings.

PURPOSE: To analyze emergency department (ED) computerized tomography (CT) utilization in cancer patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed to identify cancer patients who received COVID-19 diagnosis within the single healthcare system and presented to the ED within 30 days of COVID-19 positive date between May 1 and December 31, 2020. RESULTS: In our 61 patients, the mean age was 72.5 years old, with 34% of patients (n = 21) on active cancer therapy and 66% (n = 40) on surveillance only. Most patients (n = 53) received their COVID-19 diagnosis within the ED, with 8 patients diagnosed prior to initial ED visit. The most common CT studies ordered within the ED were CT chest (n = 25), CT abdomen/pelvis (A/P) (n = 20), CT head (n = 8), and CT chest/abdomen/pelvis (C/A/P) (n = 7). COVID-19 findings were present on 33 scans, findings of worsening malignancy on 12 scans, and non-COVID non-cancer findings on 9 scans. Significant differences in CT severity score (p = 0.0001), indication for hospitalization (p = 0.026), length of hospitalization (p = 0.004), interventions (remdesivir, mechanical ventilation, and vasopressor support) while hospitalized (p < 0.05), and mortality (p = 0.042) were found between the prior diagnosis and ED diagnosis groups. No such differences were found between the active treatment and surveillance groups. CONCLUSION: ED CT imaging findings in patients with cancer and COVID-19 are predominantly related to COVID-19 infection, rather than cancer history or anti-cancer therapy status.

Addressing ethnic disparities in imaging utilization and clinical outcomes for COVID-19.

PURPOSE: Racial and ethnic disparities have exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic as the healthcare system is overwhelmed. While Hispanics are disproportionately affected by COVID-19, little is known about ethnic disparities in the hospital settings. This study investigates imaging utilization and clinical outcomes between Hispanic and non-Hispanic COVID-19 patients in the Emergency Department (ED) and during hospitalization. METHODS: Through retrospective chart review, we included 331 symptomatic COVID-19 patients (mean age 53.2 years) at a metropolitan healthcare system from March to June 2020. Poisson regression was used to compare diagnostic imaging utilization and clinical outcomes between Hispanic and non-Hispanic patients. RESULTS: After adjusting for confounders, no statistically significant difference was found between Hispanic and non-Hispanic patients for the number of weekly chest X-rays. Results were categorized into four clinical outcomes: ED management (0.16 ± 0.05 vs. 0.14 ± 0.8, p:0.79); requiring inpatient management (1.31 ± 0.11 vs. 1.46 ± 0.16, p:0.43); ICU admission without invasive ventilation (1.4 ± 0.17 vs. 1.35 ± 0.26, p:0.86); and ICU admission and ventilator support (3.29 ± 0.22 vs. 3.59 ± 0.37, p:0.38). There were no statistically significant relative differences in adjusted prevalence rate between ethnic groups for all clinical outcomes (p > 0.05). There was a statistically significant longer adjusted length of stay (days) in non-Hispanics for two subcohorts: inpatient management (8.16 ± 0.31 vs. 9.72 ± 0.5, p < 0.01) and ICU admission without invasive ventilation (10.39 ± 0.57 vs. 13.45 ± 1.13, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: For Hispanic and non-Hispanic COVID-19 patients in the ED or hospitalized, there were no statistically significant differences in imaging utilization and clinical outcomes.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on radiology department emergency ultrasound utilization.

PURPOSE: To analyze the change in utilization of healthcare resources through a review of ultrasound examinations performed in the emergency department of an urban healthcare system in NYC during the time of peak COVID-19 outbreak. METHODS: This is a retrospective review analyzing ED ultrasound exams performed by the radiology department of an urban healthcare system during the 8-week time period of the peak COVID-19 outbreak in NYC, compared to a time-matched period one year prior. Data regarding the examination type and indication were obtained in addition to patient demographics and indicators of outcomes including admission, length of stay, and mortality. RESULTS: There was a 58% decrease in ED ultrasounds performed by the radiology department during the COVID-19 time period. Exams performed during the pandemic compared to the pre-pandemic period were more likely to be performed on men (28.3 vs 18.0%, p < 0.01), older patients (36 vs. 35 years, p = 0.02), and patients subsequently admitted (17.8 vs. 13.4%, p = 0.03). There was also a difference in the distribution of exam type (p = 0.01). There was no difference in death, rate of surgery/intervention performed, or distribution of clinical indication. When correcting for gender, there was only an increase in studies leading to hospital admission in the female-only group (14.9 vs. 10.7%, p = 0.05). CONCLUSION: COVID-19 had a drastic impact on the utilization of emergency department ultrasounds performed by the radiology department, with a decrease in total exams performed and changes in patient demographics, including a higher proportion of male patients and increases in some markers of disease severity, including rate of hospital admission.

Characteristics of COVID-19 Community Practice Declines in Noninvasive Diagnostic Imaging Professional Work.

PURPOSE: The operational and financial impact of the widespread coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) curtailment of imaging services on radiology practices is unknown. We aimed to characterize recent COVID-19-related community practice noninvasive diagnostic imaging professional work declines. METHODS: Using imaging metadata from nine community radiology practices across the United States between January 2019 and May 2020, we mapped work relative value unit (wRVU)-weighted stand-alone noninvasive diagnostic imaging service codes to both modality and body region. Weekly 2020 versus 2019 wRVU changes were analyzed by modality, body region, and site of service. Practice share χ2 testing was performed. RESULTS: Aggregate weekly wRVUs ranged from a high of 120,450 (February 2020) to a low of 55,188 (April 2020). During that -52% wRVU nadir, outpatient declines were greatest (-66%). All practices followed similar aggregate trends in the distribution of wRVUs between each 2020 versus 2019 week (P = .96-.98). As a percentage of total all-practice wRVUs, declines in CT (20,046 of 63,992; 31%) and radiography and fluoroscopy (19,196; 30%) were greatest. By body region, declines in abdomen and pelvis (16,203; 25%) and breast (12,032; 19%) imaging were greatest. Mammography (-17%) and abdominal and pelvic CT (-14%) accounted for the largest shares of total all-practice wRVU reductions. Across modality-region groups, declines were far greatest for mammography (-92%). CONCLUSIONS: Substantial COVID-19-related diagnostic imaging work declines were similar across community practices and disproportionately impacted mammography. Decline patterns could facilitate pandemic second wave planning. Overall implications for practice workflows, practice finances, patient access, and payment policy are manifold.

Quantifying the decrease in emergency department imaging utilization during the COVID-19 pandemic at a multicenter healthcare system in Ohio.

PURPOSE: To illustrate the change in emergency department (ED) imaging utilization at a multicenter health system in the state of Ohio during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A retrospective observational study was conducted assessing ED imaging volumes between March 1, 2020, and May 11, 2020, during the COVID-19 crisis. A rolling 7-day total value was used for volume tracking and comparison. Total imaging utilization in the ED was compared with new COVID-19 cases in our region. Utilization was first categorized by modality and then by plain films and computed tomography (CT) scans grouped by body part. CT imaging of the chest was specifically investigated by assessing both CT chest only exams and CT chest, abdomen, and pelvis (C/A/P) exams. Ultimately, matching pair-wise statistical analysis of exam volumes was performed to assess significance of volume change. RESULTS: Our multicenter health system experienced a 46% drop in imaging utilization (p < 0.0001) during the pandemic. Matching pair-wise analysis showed a statistically significant volume decrease by each modality and body part. The exceptions were non-contrast chest CT, which increased (p = 0.0053), and non-trauma C/A/P CT, which did not show a statistically significant volume change (p = 0.0633). CONCLUSION: ED imaging utilization trends revealed through actual health system data will help inform evidence-based decisions for more accurate volume predictions and therefore institutional preparedness for current and future pandemics.

COVID-19 Pandemic Impact on Decreased Imaging Utilization: A Single Institutional Experience.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Predictive models and anecdotal articles suggest radiology practices were losing 50%-70% of their normal imaging volume during the COVID-19 pandemic. Using actual institutional data, we investigated the change in imaging utilization and revenue during this public health crisis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Imaging performed within the 8-week span between March 8 and April 30, 2020 was categorized into the COVID-19 healthcare crisis timeframe. The first week of this date range and the 10 weeks prior were used to derive the normal practice expected volume. A rolling 7-day total value was used for volume tracking and comparison. Total imaging utilization was derived and organized by patient setting (outpatient, inpatient, emergency) and imaging modality (X-ray, CT, Mammography, MRI, Nuclear Medicine/PET, US). The three highest volume hospitals were analyzed. Revenue information was collected from the hospital billing system. RESULTS: System-wide imaging volume decreased by 55% between April 7 and 13, 2020. Outpatient exams decreased by 68% relative to normal practice. Emergency exams decreased by 48% and inpatient exams declined by 31%. Mammograms and nuclear medicine scans were the most affected modalities, decreasing by 93% and 61%, respectively. The main campus hospital experienced less relative imaging volume loss compared to the other smaller and outpatient-driven hospitals. At its lowest point, the technical component revenue from main campus imaging services demonstrated a 49% negative variance from normal practice. CONCLUSION: The trends and magnitude of the actual imaging utilization data presented will help inform evidence-based decisions for more accurate volume predictions, policy changes, and institutional preparedness for current and future pandemics.