Reducing the rate of repeat imaging: import of outside images to PACS.

OBJECTIVE Repeat imaging at the transfer of care between institutions is a potential source of overutilization. The purpose of this study was to assess whether importing images obtained at one institution to the PACS at another institution reduces the number of repeat imaging examinations performed, sparing patients unnecessary cost and radiation. MATERIALS AND METHODS Informed consent was waived for this retrospective study, which included 267 patients who had undergone CT or MRI of the abdomen at our or another institution within 4 months before transarterial chemoembolization. Patients were divided into the following four groups based on the availability of their images from institutions other than ours (outside images): outside imaging performed but images not available; outside images available on CD or film but not imported; outside images imported to PACS; and no outside imaging, that is, all imaging performed at our institution. The rates of repeat imaging in the four groups were compared. RESULTS When outside images were not available, 72% (13/18) of patients underwent repeat imaging; when outside images were available but not imported, 52% (14/27); when outside images were imported to PACS, 11% (9/79); and when imaging was performed only at our institution, 13% (18/143). Patients whose outside images were imported were significantly less likely to undergo repeat imaging than were both groups whose outside images were not imported (p < 0.001), and their rate of repeat imaging was similar to that of patients who did not undergo outside imaging (p = 0.79). After adjustment for potential confounders, including age, sex, referring institution, and size and number of lesions, the odds that a patient whose images were imported would undergo repeat imaging were significantly lower than those of a patient whose outside images were not imported (odds ratios, 31 for images not available and 9.0 for images available but not imported; both p < 0.001) and were similar to those of a patient who underwent all imaging at our institution (odds ratio, 0.71; p = 0.51). CONCLUSION Importing outside images to PACS reduces the rate of repeat imaging.

[1]  Aaron Sodickson,et al.  Outside CT imaging among emergency department transfer patients. , 2009, Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR.

[2]  Michael F. McNeeley,et al.  Transfer patient imaging: current status, review of the literature, and the Harborview experience. , 2013, Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR.

[3]  A. Flanders The real "meaning" behind meaningful use. , 2010, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[4]  Adam E Flanders,et al.  Medical image and data sharing: are we there yet? , 2009, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[5]  L. Tanoue Computed Tomography — An Increasing Source of Radiation Exposure , 2009 .

[6]  Eliot Siegel,et al.  Informatics in radiology: image exchange: IHE and the evolution of image sharing. , 2008, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[7]  Assessing the resectability of pancreatic carcinoma: the value of reinterpreting abdominal CT performed at other institutions. , 1998, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[8]  A. Sodickson,et al.  Outside imaging in emergency department transfer patients: CD import reduces rates of subsequent imaging utilization. , 2011, Radiology.

[9]  Matthijs Oudkerk,et al.  Evaluation of the Use of CD-ROM Upload into the PACS or Institutional Web Server , 2006, Journal of Digital Imaging.

[10]  T. Pilgram,et al.  Two-tiered approach to MRI for headache: a cost-effective way to use an expensive technology. , 2013, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[11]  P. Silverman,et al.  Imaging in the diagnosis, staging, treatment, and surveillance of hepatocellular carcinoma. , 2003, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[12]  Ramin Khorasani What you should know about handling digital studies generated outside your practice. , 2006, Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR.

[13]  Marco Carone,et al.  Second-opinion consultations in neuroradiology. , 2010, Radiology.

[14]  Katarzyna J Macura,et al.  Policies and procedures for reviewing medical images from portable media: survey of radiology departments. , 2011, Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR.

[15]  Drew Pg Integrating the healthcare enterprise. , 2000, M.D. computing : computers in medical practice.

[16]  Bradley James Erickson Experience with Importation of Electronic Images into the Medical Record from Physical Media , 2011, Journal of Digital Imaging.

[17]  James H Thrall,et al.  Addressing overutilization in medical imaging. , 2010, Radiology.

[18]  P. V. van Ooijen,et al.  Impact of cross-enterprise data sharing on portable media with decentralised upload of DICOM data into PACS , 2013, Insights into Imaging.

[19]  J. Fielding,et al.  Repeat abdominal computed tomography scans after pediatric blunt abdominal trauma: missed injuries, extra costs, and unnecessary radiation exposure. , 2010, Journal of pediatric surgery.

[20]  A. Sodickson Strategies for Reducing Radiation Exposure from Multidetector Computed Tomography in the Acute Care Setting , 2013, Canadian Association of Radiologists journal = Journal l'Association canadienne des radiologistes.

[21]  J. Willatt,et al.  MR Imaging of hepatocellular carcinoma in the cirrhotic liver: challenges and controversies. , 2008, Radiology.

[22]  NeedsFixing Need for image, data portability opens door for electronic answers , 2010 .

[23]  A. J. Johnson,et al.  Insight into the Sharing of Medical Images , 2012, Applied Clinical Informatics.