Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 17 de 17
Filter
1.
Emerg Radiol ; 28(4): 705-711, 2021 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1168987

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: During the first peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, the activity of Emergency Departments worldwide changed dramatically, focusing on diagnosis and care of the Sars-Cov-2 associated disease. These major changes also involved the activity of the Emergency Radiology Department (ERD). This study aimed to analyse the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on imaging studies, both in terms of the amount, frequency and subspecialty of different imaging modalities requested to the ERD of the Maggiore della Carità Hospital in Novara (Italy). METHODS: To this end, our observational study took into account the imaging studies requested by the emergency department during three-time spans. These were defined as phase 0 (pre-pandemic), phase 1 (pandemic peak with complete lockdown) and phase 2 (post-pandemic peak with partial lifting of restrictive measures), as derived from Italian urgent decrees by the President of the Council of Ministers (DPCM) which established the duration and entity of the lockdown measures throughout the pandemic. The dataset was processed and then compared with Pearson's chi-squared test. RESULTS: During the pandemic peak, our data showed a significant drop in the total number of studies requested and a significant rise in computed tomography (CT) studies. In particular, a statistically significant increase in chest CT studies was found, probably due to the high sensitivity of this imaging method in identifying pulmonary involvement during respiratory tract infection of possible viral etiology (SARS-Cov-2). Moreover, we observed a statistically significant decrease of X-ray (XR) and ultrasound (US) studies during phase 1 compared to phase 0 and phase 2 probably due to a reduction in the numbers of ER visits for minor traumas given the mobility restrictions and people hesitancy in visiting the ER due to fear of contagion. CONCLUSIONS: We can conclude that the activity of the ERD was heavily impacted by the SARS-Cov-2 pandemic. Further studies will be needed to estimate the impact of the pandemic on public health in terms of excess mortality related to delayed diagnosis and care of non-COVID diseases.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Diagnostic Imaging/statistics & numerical data , Emergency Service, Hospital/organization & administration , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Health Services Needs and Demand , Hospital Planning , Humans , Italy/epidemiology , Organizational Case Studies , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , SARS-CoV-2
2.
J Am Coll Radiol ; 17(11): 1453-1459, 2020 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1065250

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Diagnostic Imaging/statistics & numerical data , Workload/statistics & numerical data , Diagnostic Imaging/economics , Humans , Pandemics , Relative Value Scales , SARS-CoV-2 , United States/epidemiology , Workload/economics
3.
Emerg Radiol ; 28(2): 339-347, 2021 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1014151

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: To investigate the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on emergency department (ED) imaging. METHODS: This retrospective study included all ED visits at a four-hospital academic health system in two matched 5-week periods. Demographic information, COVID-19 status, and disposition were reviewed. Type of imaging, acquisition time, and radiology reports were analyzed. Significance level was set at p < 0.05. RESULTS: A 43.2% decrease in ED visits and 12% reduction in overall ED imaging occurred during the pandemic period. Mean age was unchanged, but a shift in gender and racial characteristics was observed (p < 0.001). In the pandemic period, COVID-19 ED patients were older (61.8 ± 16.9 years, p < 0.001) and more likely to be Black (64.2%; p < 0.001) than non-COVID-19 patients. Imaging per ED encounter increased to 2.4 ± 2.8 exams from 1.7 ± 1.1 (p < 0.001). Radiography increased (57.2% vs. 52.4%) as a fraction of total ED imaging, while computed tomography (23.4% vs. 27.2%) and ultrasound (8.5% vs. 9.6%) decreased (pre-pandemic vs. pandemic). COVID-19 ED patients underwent CT and US at a lower rate (11.5% and 5.4%) than non-COVID-19 patients (25.4% and 9.1%). The proportion of imaging study reports concluding "no disease" or "no acute disease" decreased from 56.7 to 40.6% (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic led to a significant reduction in ED visits, a shift in patient demographics, and a significant decrease in imaging volume. Additional impact included a significant increase in the proportion of positive imaging studies.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Diagnostic Imaging/statistics & numerical data , Emergency Service, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Female , Georgia/epidemiology , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
5.
J Med Imaging Radiat Sci ; 51(4): 574-578, 2020 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-894050

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, outpatient diagnostic imaging (DI) facilities experienced decreased operations and even unprecedented closures. The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of COVID-19 on the practices of DI clinics, and investigate the reasons for the change in their operations during the initial period of the pandemic starting in mid-March 2020. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A questionnaire was created and distributed to the managers of eighteen outpatient DI clinics in London, Hamilton, and Halton, Ontario, Canada. The managers indicated whether their clinics had closed or decreased operations, the reasons for closure, and the types of imaging examinations conducted in the initial period of the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: Fifty percent of the DI clinics surveyed (9/18) closed as a result of COVID-19, and those that remained open had decreased hours of operation. The clinics that closed indicated decreased referrals as the primary reason for closure, followed by staff shortage, concerns for safety, and suspension of elective imaging. Chest radiography and obstetric ultrasound were the most commonly conducted examinations. Clinics that were in close geographical proximity were able to redistribute imaging examinations amongst themselves. All DI clinics had suspended BMD examinations and elective breast screening, and some transitioned to booked appointments only. CONCLUSION: Many DI clinics needed to close or decrease operations as a result of COVID-19, a phenomenon that is unprecedented in radiological practice. The results of this study can assist outpatient DI clinics in preparing for subsequent waves of COVID-19, future pandemics, and other periods of crisis.


Subject(s)
Ambulatory Care Facilities/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19/prevention & control , Diagnostic Imaging/statistics & numerical data , Health Care Surveys/statistics & numerical data , Health Facility Closure/statistics & numerical data , Telemedicine/statistics & numerical data , Health Care Surveys/methods , Humans , Ontario , Pandemics , Telemedicine/methods
6.
Emerg Radiol ; 27(6): 765-772, 2020 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-738684

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Diagnostic Imaging/statistics & numerical data , Emergency Service, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , COVID-19 , Humans , Ohio/epidemiology , Pandemics , Retrospective Studies , Utilization Review
7.
CMAJ Open ; 8(3): E514-E521, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-725389

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak increases the importance of strategies to enhance urgent medical care delivery in long-term care (LTC) facilities that could potentially reduce transfers to emergency departments. The study objective was to model resource requirements to deliver virtual urgent medical care in LTC facilities. METHODS: We used data from all general medicine inpatient admissions at 7 hospitals in the Greater Toronto Area, Ontario, Canada, over a 7.5-year period (Apr. 1, 2010, to Oct. 31, 2017) to estimate historical patterns of hospital resource use by LTC residents. We estimated an upper bound of potentially avoidable transfers by combining data on short admissions (≤ 72 h) with historical data on the proportion of transfers from LTC facilities for which patients were discharged from the emergency department without admission. Regression models were used to extrapolate future resource requirements, and queuing models were used to estimate physician staffing requirements to perform virtual assessments. RESULTS: There were 235 375 admissions to general medicine wards, and residents of LTC facilities (age 16 yr or older) accounted for 9.3% (n = 21 948) of these admissions. Among the admissions of residents of LTC facilities, short admissions constituted 24.1% (n = 5297), and for 99.8% (n = 5284) of these admissions, the patient received laboratory testing, for 86.9% (n = 4604) the patient received plain radiography, for 41.5% (n = 2197) the patient received computed tomography and for 81.2% (n = 4300) the patient received intravenous medications. If all patients who have short admissions and are transferred from the emergency department were diverted to outpatient care, the average weekly demand for outpatient imaging per hospital would be 2.6 ultrasounds, 11.9 computed tomographic scans and 23.9 radiographs per week. The average daily volume of urgent medical virtual assessments would range from 2.0 to 5.8 per hospital. A single centralized virtual assessment centre staffed by 2 or 3 physicians would provide services similar in efficiency (measured by waiting time for physician assessment) to 7 separate centres staffed by 1 physician each. INTERPRETATION: The provision of acute medical care to LTC residents at their facility would probably require rapid access to outpatient diagnostic imaging, within-facility access to laboratory services and intravenous medication and virtual consultations with physicians. The results of this study can inform efforts to deliver urgent medical care in LTC facilities in light of a potential surge in COVID-19 cases.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/diagnosis , Health Resources/supply & distribution , Physicians/supply & distribution , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Skilled Nursing Facilities/statistics & numerical data , Telemedicine/statistics & numerical data , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Ambulatory Care , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/virology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Diagnostic Imaging/statistics & numerical data , Disease Outbreaks/prevention & control , Disease Outbreaks/statistics & numerical data , Emergency Service, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Female , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Hospitalization/trends , Humans , Long-Term Care/statistics & numerical data , Male , Middle Aged , Ontario/epidemiology , Patient Transfer/statistics & numerical data , Retrospective Studies , Skilled Nursing Facilities/organization & administration , Workforce/statistics & numerical data
8.
J Med Radiat Sci ; 67(4): 345-351, 2020 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-724354

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this commentary was to outline several key considerations and challenges for medical imaging departments during a global pandemic. Five public hospital medical imaging departments were identified in South-East Queensland, Australia, to provide insight into their response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Common themes were identified, with the four considered most pertinent documented in this commentary. Similar operational considerations and challenges were identified amongst all sites. This commentary intends to serve as a starting point for medical imaging departments in considering the planning and implementation of services in a pandemic scenario.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Delivery of Health Care/standards , Diagnostic Imaging/statistics & numerical data , Diagnostic Imaging/standards , Hospital Departments/standards , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/virology , Humans , Queensland/epidemiology
10.
Breast Cancer Res Treat ; 184(1): 249-254, 2020 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-706604

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has had a profound impact on cancer care in the US Guidelines focused on the management of COVID-19, rather than healthcare needs of breast cancer patients requiring access to crucial services. This US survey of breast cancer survivors characterizes treatment delays early period in the pandemic. METHODS: We developed a survey and administered it to 609 adult breast cancer survivors in the US. We used snowball sampling with invitations distributed via social media. We used logistic regression to select a model of delay from a pool of independent variables including race, cancer stage, site of care, health insurance, and age. We used descriptive statistics to characterize delay types. RESULTS: Forty-four percent of participants reported cancer care treatment delays during the pandemic. Delays in all aspects of cancer care and treatment were reported. The only variable which had a significant effect was age (97 (.95, 99), p < 0.001) with younger respondents (M = 45.94, SD = 10.31) reporting a higher incidence of delays than older respondents (M = 48.98, SD = 11.10). There was no significant effect for race, insurance, site of care, or cancer stage. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings reveal a pervasive impact of COVID-19 on breast cancer care and a gap in disaster preparedness that leaves cancer survivors at risk for poor outcomes. Delays are critical to capture and characterize to help cancer providers and healthcare systems develop effective and patient-tailored processes and strategies to manage cases during the current pandemic wave, subsequent waves, and future disasters.


Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms/therapy , Coronavirus Infections , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral , Time-to-Treatment/statistics & numerical data , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Antineoplastic Agents/therapeutic use , Betacoronavirus , Breast Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , COVID-19 , Delivery of Health Care , Diagnostic Imaging/statistics & numerical data , Female , Genetic Counseling/statistics & numerical data , Genetic Testing/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Logistic Models , Male , Mammaplasty/statistics & numerical data , Mastectomy/statistics & numerical data , Middle Aged , Ovariectomy/statistics & numerical data , Radiotherapy/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2 , Surveys and Questionnaires , United States , Young Adult
11.
Radiol Oncol ; 54(3): 329-334, 2020 07 29.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-691313

ABSTRACT

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted the provision and use of healthcare services throughout the world. In Slovenia, an epidemic was officially declared between mid-March and mid-May 2020. Although all non-essential health care services were put on hold by government decree, oncological services were listed as an exception. Nevertheless, as cancer control depends also on other health services and additionally major changes in people's behaviour likely occurred, we aimed to analyse whether cancer diagnosis and management were affected during the COVID-19 epidemic in Slovenia. Methods We analysed routine data for the period November 2019 through May 2020 from three sources: (1) from the Slovenian Cancer Registry we analysed data on pathohistological and clinical practice cancer notifications from two major cancer centres in Ljubljana and Maribor; (2) from the e-referral system we analysed data on all referrals in Slovenia issued for oncological services, stratified by type of referral; and (3) from the administrative data of the Institute of Oncology Ljubljana we analysed data on outpatient visits by type as well as on diagnostic imaging performed. Results Compared to the November 2019 - February 2020 average, the decrease in April 2020 was about 43% and 29% for pathohistological and clinical cancer notifications; 33%, 46% and 85% for first, control and genetic counselling referrals; 19% (53%), 43% (72%) and 20% (21%) for first (and control) outpatient visits at the radiotherapy, surgery and medical oncology sectors at the Institute of Oncology Ljubljana, and 48%, 76%, and 42% for X-rays, mammograms and ultrasounds performed at the Institute, respectively. The number of CT and MRI scans performed was not affected. Conclusions Significant drops in first referrals for oncological services, first visits and imaging studies performed at the Institute, as well as cancer notifications in April 2020 point to a possibility of a delayed cancer diagnosis for some patients during the first surge of SARS-CoV-2 cases in Slovenia. The reasons for the delay cannot be ascertained with certainty and could be linked to health-seeking behaviour of the patients, the beliefs and practices of doctors and/ or the health system management during the epidemic. Drops in control referrals and control visits were expected and are most likely due to the Institute of Oncology Ljubljana postponing non-essential follow-ups through May 2020.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Neoplasms/diagnosis , Neoplasms/therapy , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Ambulatory Care/statistics & numerical data , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Cancer Care Facilities/statistics & numerical data , Delayed Diagnosis , Diagnostic Imaging/statistics & numerical data , Facilities and Services Utilization , Health Services Accessibility , Humans , Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Referral and Consultation/statistics & numerical data , Registries , SARS-CoV-2 , Slovenia/epidemiology
12.
J Am Coll Radiol ; 17(9): 1086-1095, 2020 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-680404

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic resulted in significant loss of radiologic volume as a result of shelter-at-home mandates and delay of non-time-sensitive imaging studies to preserve capacity for the pandemic. We analyze the volume-related impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on six academic medical systems (AMSs), three in high COVID-19 surge (high-surge) and three in low COVID-19 surge (low-surge) regions, and a large national private practice coalition. We sought to assess adaptations, risks of actions, and lessons learned. METHODS: Percent change of 2020 volume per week was compared with the corresponding 2019 volume calculated for each of the 14 imaging modalities and overall total, outpatient, emergency, and inpatient studies in high-surge AMSs and low-surge AMSs and the practice coalition. RESULTS: Steep examination volume drops occurred during week 11, with slow recovery starting week 17. The lowest total AMS volume drop was 40% compared with the same period the previous year, and the largest was 70%. The greatest decreases were seen with screening mammography and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scans, and the smallest decreases were seen with PET/CT, x-ray, and interventional radiology. Inpatient volume was least impacted compared with outpatient or emergency imaging. CONCLUSION: Large percentage drops in volume were seen from weeks 11 through 17, were seen with screening studies, and were larger for the high-surge AMSs than for the low-surge AMSs. The lowest drops in volume were seen with modalities in which delays in imaging had greater perceived adverse consequences.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Diagnostic Imaging/statistics & numerical data , Infection Control/organization & administration , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography/statistics & numerical data , Radiology/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Diagnostic Imaging/methods , Female , Forecasting , Humans , Incidence , Learning , Male , Pandemics/statistics & numerical data , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Radiology/trends , Risk Assessment , United States
13.
Aging Clin Exp Res ; 32(9): 1889-1895, 2020 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-648676

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The potential differences between a clinical diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) (i.e., symptoms without positive virus test) and a microbiological diagnosis (i.e., positive virus test results) of COVID-19 are not known. AIMS: This study explored the differences between the two types of COVID-19 diagnosis among older patients in terms of clinical characteristics and outcomes. METHODS: A total of 244 inpatients aged ≥ 60 years with COVID-19 were included in this study, of whom 52 were clinically diagnosed and 192 were microbiologically diagnosed. Clinical and laboratory data on hospital admission and outcomes (discharged or died in hospital) of all patients were retrieved from medical records retrospectively. Patients who met the criteria for clinical diagnosis with negative virus test results were assigned to the clinical diagnosis group, whereas those with positive virus test results were assigned to the microbiological diagnosis group. After univariate analyses, two propensity score analyses [i.e., covariate adjustment using propensity score (CAPS) and propensity score matching (PSM)] were conducted to control bias. RESULTS: The clinical and microbiological diagnosis groups demonstrated significant differences in outcomes and in the majority of laboratory findings. After propensity score analyses, many differences between the two groups disappeared and the rate of mortality had no statistically significant difference (P = 0.318 and 0.828 for CAPS and PSM, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with similar signs, symptoms, and laboratory and imaging findings as confirmed COVID-19 cases may have a similar mortality risk, regardless of the virus test results, and require timely intervention to reduce their mortality.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus/isolation & purification , Clinical Laboratory Techniques , Coronavirus Infections , Diagnostic Imaging , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral , Symptom Assessment , Aged , COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , China/epidemiology , Clinical Laboratory Techniques/methods , Clinical Laboratory Techniques/statistics & numerical data , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/mortality , Coronavirus Infections/physiopathology , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Correlation of Data , Diagnostic Imaging/methods , Diagnostic Imaging/statistics & numerical data , Female , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Mortality , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/mortality , Pneumonia, Viral/physiopathology , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Retrospective Studies , Risk Assessment , SARS-CoV-2 , Symptom Assessment/methods , Symptom Assessment/statistics & numerical data
14.
J Am Coll Radiol ; 17(10): 1289-1298, 2020 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-634323

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had a significant impact on imaging utilization across practice settings. The purpose of this study was to quantify the change in the composition of inpatient imaging volumes for modality types and Current Procedural Terminology-coded groups during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A retrospective study of inpatient imaging volumes in a large health care system was performed, analyzing weekly imaging volumes by modality types (radiography, CT, MRI, ultrasound, interventional radiology, nuclear medicine) in years 2020 and 2019. The data set was split to compare pre-COVID-19 (weeks 1-9) and post-COVID-19 (weeks 10-16) periods. Further subanalyses compared early post-COVID-19 (weeks 10-13) and late post-COVID-19 (weeks 14-16) periods. Statistical comparisons were performed using χ2 and independent-samples t tests. RESULTS: Compared with 2019, total inpatient imaging volume in 2020 post-COVID-19, early and late post-COVID-19 periods, declined by 13.6% (from 78,902 to 68,168), 16.6% (from 45,221 to 37,732), and 9.6% (from 33,681 to 30,436), respectively. By week 16, inpatient imaging volume rebounded and was only down 4.2% (from 11,003 to 10,546). However, a statistically significant shift (P < .0001) in the 2020 composition mix was observed largely comprised of radiography (74.3%), followed by CT (12.7%), ultrasound (8%), MRI (2.4%), interventional radiology (2.3%), and nuclear medicine (0.4%). Although the vast majority of imaging studies declined, few Current Procedural Terminology-coded groups showed increased trends in imaging volumes in the late post-COVID-19 period, including CT angiography chest, radiography chest, and ultrasound venous duplex. DISCUSSION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, we observed a decrease in inpatient imaging volumes accompanied by a shift away from cross-sectional imaging toward radiography. These findings could have significant implications in planning for a potential resurgence.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Diagnostic Imaging/methods , Diagnostic Imaging/statistics & numerical data , Infection Control/methods , Inpatients/statistics & numerical data , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Radiology Department, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19 , Computed Tomography Angiography/methods , Computed Tomography Angiography/statistics & numerical data , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Databases, Factual , Female , Humans , Magnetic Resonance Angiography/methods , Magnetic Resonance Angiography/statistics & numerical data , Magnetic Resonance Imaging/methods , Magnetic Resonance Imaging/statistics & numerical data , Male , Pandemics/statistics & numerical data , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Prevalence , Reference Values , Retrospective Studies , Risk Assessment , Tomography, X-Ray Computed/methods , Tomography, X-Ray Computed/statistics & numerical data , United States
16.
Emerg Radiol ; 27(6): 781-784, 2020 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-537179

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to significant disruptions in the healthcare system including surges of infected patients exceeding local capacity, closures of primary care offices, and delays of non-emergent medical care. Government-initiated measures to decrease healthcare utilization (i.e., "flattening the curve") have included shelter-in-place mandates and social distancing, which have taken effect across most of the USA. We evaluate the immediate impact of the Public Health Messaging and shelter-in-place mandates on Emergency Department (ED) demand for radiology services. METHODS: We analyzed ED radiology volumes from the five University of California health systems during a 2-week time period following the shelter-in-place mandate and compared those volumes with March 2019 and early April 2019 volumes. RESULTS: ED radiology volumes declined from the 2019 baseline by 32 to 40% (p < 0.001) across the five health systems with a total decrease in volumes across all 5 systems by 35% (p < 0.001). Stratifying by subspecialty, the smallest declines were seen in non-trauma thoracic imaging, which decreased 18% (p value < 0.001), while all other non-trauma studies decreased by 48% (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Total ED radiology demand may be a marker for public adherence to shelter-in-place mandates, though ED chest radiology demand may increase with an increase in COVID-19 cases.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/diagnostic imaging , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Diagnostic Imaging/statistics & numerical data , Emergency Service, Hospital , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnostic imaging , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , California/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Male , Pandemics , Quarantine , SARS-CoV-2 , Utilization Review
17.
Diagn Interv Radiol ; 26(4): 301-307, 2020 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-327174

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: We aimed to retrospectively analyze the imaging changes detected in the follow-up of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients on thin-section computed tomography (CT). METHODS: We included 54 patients diagnosed with COVID-19. The mean interval between the initial and follow-up CT scans was 7.82±3.74 days. Patients were divided into progression and recovery groups according to their outcomes. We evaluated CT images in terms of distribution of lesions and imaging manifestations. The manifestations included ground-glass opacity (GGO), crazy-paving pattern, consolidation, irregular line, and air bronchogram sign. RESULTS: COVID-19 lesions showed mainly subpleural distribution, which was accompanied by bronchovascular bundle distribution in nearly 30% of the patients. The lower lobes of both lungs were the most commonly involved. In the follow-up, the progression group showed more involvement of the upper lobe of the left lung than the recovery group. GGO was the most common sign. As the disease progressed, round GGO decreased and patchy GGO increased. On follow-up CT, consolidation increased in the progression group while decreasing in the recovery group. Air bronchogram sign was more commonly observed at the initial examination (90.9%) than at follow-up (30%) in the recovery group, but there was no significant change in the progression group. Pleural effusion and lymphadenopathy were absent in the initial examination, but pleural effusion was observed in three cases after follow-up. CONCLUSION: As COVID-19 progressed, round GGOs tended to evolve into patchy GGOs, consolidation increased, and pleural effusion could be occasionally observed. As COVID-19 resolved, the crazy-paving pattern and air bronchogram significantly decreased.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/diagnostic imaging , Diagnostic Imaging/statistics & numerical data , Lung/diagnostic imaging , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnostic imaging , Tomography, X-Ray Computed/statistics & numerical data , Adult , Betacoronavirus/isolation & purification , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Diagnostic Imaging/trends , Disease Progression , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Lung/pathology , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Pleural Effusion/diagnostic imaging , Pleural Effusion/epidemiology , Pleural Effusion/pathology , Pneumonia/diagnostic imaging , Pneumonia/pathology , Pneumonia/virology , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Tomography, X-Ray Computed/methods
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL