HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 2362040671v1 236/2/413    most recent Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Reiner, B. I. Articles by Chacko, A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Reiner, B. I. Articles by Chacko, A.

Multi-institutional Analysis of Computed and Direct Radiography

Part I. Technologist Productivity¹

¹ From the Department of Radiology, Veterans Affairs Maryland Healthcare System, Baltimore, Md (B.I.R., E.L.S., F.J.H., K.M.S., A.M.); Department of Radiology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Md (B.I.R., E.L.S.); Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY (L.W.); and Department of Radiology, Lahey Clinic Medical Center, Burlington, Mass (A.C.). Received April 12, 2004; revision requested June 18; revision received August 19; accepted November 30. Supported in part by an industry research grant from Fuji Medical Systems USA. Address correspondence to B.I.R., 6 Greenleaf Ln, Seaford, DE 19973 (e-mail: breiner1{at}comcast.net).

PURPOSE: To assess whether it is feasible to measure and compare work-flow times across institutional variations, and to apply such a comparison to technologist productivity in the performance of general radiographic examinations with computed radiography (CR) and direct radiography (DR).

MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study received internal review board exemption. Participants were informed about the study and willingly participated. Observational time-motion analyses were performed at four sites at which CR and DR are used concurrently. The time taken by the technologist for patient preparation, positioning, exposure, and postacquisition processing, and for the examination as a whole, was recorded. Data collected reflect unique elements at each clinical center, and no standardized work flow was imposed. Work-flow performance times were correlated with each site profile. Preliminary statistical analyses included examination of distributions of original and combined variables. Descriptive statistics were presented as means or frequencies, depending on whether the data were continuous or categorical. Continuous variables were compared by using the Student t test. Timing differences between CR and DR for each clinical center were compared, and all data were analyzed by using commercially available statistical software.

RESULTS: For all four study sites, statistically significant total examination time differences were observed when comparing CR and DR (P < .001). The single step in the examination that was found to be the largest contributor to time difference was postacquisition processing, which accounted for 30%–100% of the total time difference between the two technologies. The most time-efficient sites were those that had in-room postacquisition processing capability and fully functional integration with the radiology information system. Investigators at two study sites compared times for two-view chest radiography only, and those at the other two study sites compared times for multiview general radiographic examinations. Only the results of two-view comparisons were reported for each site.

CONCLUSION: Overall technologist time was significantly shorter when performing tasks associated with DR than when performing comparable tasks associated with CR, a difference that appears to result largely from technology configuration, staffing, and patient management.

© RSNA, 2005