Biomedical subjects

G Weatherburn

Publications and source records attributed to G Weatherburn.

9 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2001

The cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging for investigation of the knee joint.

OBJECTIVES: This study considered the role of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the diagnosis of knee injuries in a district general hospital (DGH) setting. The principal objective was to identify whether the use of MRI had a major impact on the clinical management of patients presenting with chronic knee problems, in whom surgery was being considered, whether it reduced overall costs and whether it improved patient outcome. In addition, the research: (1) explored the 'diagnostic accuracy' of initial clinical investigation of the knee by an orthopaedic trainee, consultant knee specialist and consultant radiologist; (2) considered the variability and diagnostic accuracy of interpretations of knee MRI investigations between radiologists; (3) measured the strength of preference for the potential diagnostic/therapeutic impact of knee MRI (i.e. the avoidance of surgery). METHODS - RANDOMISED CONTROLLED TRIAL: The research was based on a single-centre randomised controlled trial conducted at Kent and Canterbury Hospital. Patients attending with knee problems in whom surgery was being considered were recruited from routine orthopaedic clinics. Most patients had been referred by their general practitioner. Patients were randomised to either investigation using an MRI scan (MRI trial arm) or investigation using arthroscopy (no-MRI trial arm). The study investigated the benefits of knee MRI at two levels: diagnostic/therapeutic impact (i.e. avoidance of surgery) and patient outcome (using the Short Form with 36 items and EQ-5D quality-of-life measurement instruments). Quality of life was assessed at baseline and at 6 and 12 months. Costs were assessed from the perspectives of the NHS and patients. All analyses were by intention to treat. METHODS - SUBSTUDIES (INVESTIGATION OF DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY): For the investigation of diagnostic accuracy of initial clinical investigation, the sample comprised 114 patients recruited in a separate study conducted at St Thomas' Hospital. The sample was drawn from patients presenting at the Accident and Emergency Department with an acute knee injury. All study patients received an MRI scan, but initial diagnosis was made without access to the scan or the radiologist's report. After 12 months, all clinical notes and MRI scans of study patients were reviewed and a final 'reference standard' diagnosis for each patient was reached. Comparison was made between the diagnosis recorded by each clinician (i.e. orthopaedic trainee, knee specialist and consultant radiologist) and the reference diagnosis. METHODS - SUBSTUDIES (INVESTIGATION OF THE GENERALISABILITY OF RESULTS): For this substudy, the MRI images from 80 patients (recruited at St Thomas' Hospital) were interpreted independently by seven consultant radiologists at DGHs and the St Thomas' Hospital MRI radiologist. For each area of the knee, the level of agreement (measured using weighted kappa) between the responses of the eight radiologists and the reference standard diagnosis was assessed. METHODS - SUBSTUDIES (INVESTIGATION OF PREFERENCES): The investigation of potential patient preferences for the diagnostic/therapeutic impact of MRI was explored using a discrete choice conjoint measurement research design. Choices involved selecting between two alternative scenarios described using four attributes, and data were collected from 585 undergraduate sports science students and analysed using a random-effects probit model. RESULTS - RANDOMISED CONTROLLED TRIAL: The trial recruited 118 patients (59 randomly allocated to each arm). The two groups were similar in important respects at baseline. The central finding was of no statistically significant differences between groups in all measures of health outcome, although a trend in favour of the no-MRI group was observed. However, the use of MRI was found to be associated with a positive diagnostic/therapeutic impact: a significantly smaller proportion of patients in the MRI group underwent surgery (MRI = 0.41, no-MRI = 0.71; p = 0.001). There was a similar mean overall NHS cost for both groups. RESULTS - SUBSTUDIES (INVESTIGATION OF DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY): The exploration of diagnostic accuracy found that, when compared to orthopaedic trainees (44% correct diagnoses) or to radiologists reporting an MRI scan (68% correct diagnoses), the accuracy rate was higher for knee specialists (72% correct diagnoses). RESULTS - SUBSTUDIES (INVESTIGATION OF THE GENERALISABILITY OF RESULTS): This generalisability study indicated that, in general terms, radiologists in DGHs provide accurate interpretations of knee MRI images that are similar to a radiologist at a specialist centre. The one area of the knee for which this did not hold was the lateral collateral ligament. RESULTS - SUBSTUDIES (INVESTIGATION OF PREFERENCES): The central finding for this substudy was that, on average and within the range specified, choices in this group of potential patients were not significantly influenced by variation in the chance of avoiding surgery. CONCLUSIONS - IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTHCARE: The evidence presented in this report supports the conclusions that the use of MRI in patients presenting at DGHs with chronic knee problems in whom arthroscopy was being considered did not increase NHS costs overall, was not associated with significantly worse outcomes and avoided surgery in a significant proportion of patients. CONCLUSIONS - RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH (IN PRIORITY ORDER): (1) The trial data demonstrated that the use of MRI in patients with chronic knee problems reduced the need for surgery. However, the link between diagnostic processes and changes in health outcome is indirect and the finding of no-MRI-related effect on health outcome may, therefore, be a consequence of the limited power of the trial. Further research to confirm (or contradict) these findings would be valuable. (2) The investigation of diagnostic accuracy involved comparison with a reference diagnosis established by a panel of two clinical members of the research team. It would be interesting to explore the extent to which the results would differ using an external panel. (3) The result from the preference study, indicating that the potential diagnostic/therapeutic impact of knee MRI was not highly valued, is a surprising finding that would be important to explore in general public or patient populations. (4) The focus for the trial-based aspects of this research was the DGH and patients presenting with chronic knee problems who were being considered for surgery. Care should be taken in generalising from these results to other patient groups (e.g. acute knee injuries) or to other settings (e.g. specialist centres). Further clinical trials would be required in order to answer such questions.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2000

A comparison of the time required by radiologists for the preparation of clinico-radiological meetings when film and PACS are used.

The hypothesis was that when a hospital-wide Picture Archive and Communications System (PACS) is used, preparation for clinico-radiological meetings is faster, and more images are available, than when a conventional film system is used. This paper reports a study which compared the preparation time by radiologists when film was used with the time for the same activity when a hospital-wide PACS was used at Hammersmith Hospital for the preparation of the respirator medicine and hepato-biliary meeting. It was found that when PACS was used the time per patient to prepare for the respiratory medicine session was reduced by 11.1 min and that similarly, 16 min per patient was saved in the preparation of the hepato-biliary sessions. The number of images which were unavailable for the session was reduced when PACS was in operation, but this reduction was not shown to be statistically significant. The introduction of PACS at Hammersmith Hospital has significantly reduced the time spent by radiologists in preparing for the two clinico-radiological sessions studied and, if this is extended to the other numerous sessions held each week, contributes to a considerable saving of staff time within the radiology department.

Communication↗

PubMed2000

The impact of a picture archiving and communication system (PACS) upon an intensive care unit.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to assess the effect of the introduction of PACS (Picture Archiving and Communication System) upon image availability in an Intensive Care Unit (ICU) and the consequent impact upon the behaviour of the ICU physicians, in terms of the initiation of image-based clinical actions. DESIGN: A before and after study was used to compare the speed of image availability prior to, and following, the implementation of a hospital-wide PACS. SETTING: The research was part of an economic evaluation of PACS at Hammersmith Hospital, West London. PATIENTS AND PARTICIPANTS: All ICU patients who were X-rayed during two pre-PACS and one post-PACS data collection periods were included within the study. MEASUREMENTS: The times of: the X-ray request; acquisition; availability on ICU; and of any image-based clinical action taken by the ICU physician were recorded by radiographers and ICU physicians. RESULTS: PACS significantly reduced the time between request and image availability on ICU for routine X-rays but did not have any measurable impact upon the time clinical actions were initiated by ICU physicians. The data on non-routine images were statistically inconclusive. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that PACS significantly improves the speed of delivery of routine images to the ICU, but it appears that the instigation of image-based clinical actions is determined by other organisational factors in ICU, such as ward rounds, rather than the availability of the image for viewing. Further work is required on non-routine X-rays to clarify the impact of PACS on physician behaviour in clinically urgent situations.

Humans↗

PubMed2000

The effect of a picture archiving and communications system (PACS) on diagnostic performance in the accident and emergency department.

OBJECTIVE: A study has been conducted to identify the benefits to the accident and emergency (A&E) department of a hospital wide Picture Archiving and Communications System (PACS). METHODS: The study was conducted in two parts: firstly while the hospital was using conventional radiographic films, and secondly when the PACS was in operation. For each part of the study, the diagnoses of radiographic images made by A&E clinicians were compared with those made by radiologists. This resulted in the estimation of the incidence of false negative findings by the A&E staff. The management of patients with such findings was studied to identify those for whom a change of treatment was required. Such data for the two periods, when film and when PACS was used, were compared. RESULTS: It was found that the overall rate of misdiagnoses across all A&E patients who had radiography was low in both periods and there was a significant reduction when PACS was used (1.5% for film and 0.7% for PACS, 95% CI for difference between proportions: -0.014 to -0.0034), but the rate of serious misdiagnoses involving patient recall did not change significantly (95% CI for difference between proportions: -0.0059 to +0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: When PACS was used the diagnostic performance by A&E staff improved by reducing false negative interpretations but the rate of serious misdiagnosis did not change.

Diagnostic Errors↗

PubMed1999

Evaluation of a hospital picture archiving and communication system.

OBJECTIVES: To establish the net costs to the hospital and the broad range of benefits associated with a hospital-wide picture archiving and communication system (PACS) that comprised digital acquisition, storage and transmission of radiological images via a hospital-wide network to 150 workstations. METHODS: 'Before and after' comparisons and time series analyses at Hammersmith Hospital (London, UK), and comparison with five other British hospitals where PACS was not being installed. The cost analysis considered implementation costs and changes in key elements of hospital running costs, including the impact of changes in the length of inpatient stays. A range of benefit measures were investigated, including image availability, avoidance of repeat imaging, avoidance of exposure to radiation, patient turn-round speed, time from examination to image availability in intensive care, avoidance of diagnostic 'errors' by casualty doctors, the additional diagnostic value of PACS-based images and clinician satisfaction. RESULTS: The annual equivalent capital cost of the PACS was 1.7 million Pounds (annual equivalent replacement cost: 0.8 million Pound). Overall, the PACS substantially increased running costs. No convincing evidence of a PACS-induced change in length of inpatient stay was found. PACS was associated with some improvements in the performance of the radiology department: improved image availability (97.7% versus 86.9%), lower repeat imaging rate (7.3% versus 9.9%) and 20% lower total radiation doses for examinations of the lateral lumbar spine. No improvements were identified in the quality of the radiology reporting service. Benefits outside radiology included shorter time from examination to image availability for routine uses in intensive care (19 versus 37 minutes), and a lower rate of diagnostic 'errors' in casualty (0.65% versus 1.51%). High levels of satisfaction with PACS were found amongst both providers and clinical users. CONCLUSIONS: PACS was almost universally preferred by users and brought many operational and clinical benefits. However, these advantages came at a significant capital and net running cost.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗

PubMed1998

Radiology report times: impact of picture archiving and communication systems.

OBJECTIVE: We investigated the impact on radiologist reporting time of the change from conventional film to hard-copy computerized radiography and of the subsequent move to soft-copy images on picture archiving and communication system (PACS) workstations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A controlled before and after research design was undertaken. Data were collected on four occasions: two relating to conventional film, one relating to hard-copy computerized radiography, and one relating to soft-copy PACS images. Data collection was by direct observation of radiology reporting sessions by independent health service researchers. Data were collected on report times, details of images viewed, characteristics of the radiologist, and details of interruptions. To control for potential biases in the before and after comparisons, ordinary least squares multiple regression analysis was used. The principal comparison was between reports with PACS and reports with computerized radiography hard-copy because no change was noted in the organization of the reporting process between these two data collection rounds other than the introduction of the PACS. RESULTS: Data were collected on a total of 5568 report observations. Report time in the PACS data collection period was not significantly different (p = .32) than that in the computerized radiography hard-copy period. Reporting with the PACS was associated with significantly more (p < .01) historical images (i.e., images of the same patient obtained in previous examinations) being viewed. CONCLUSION: Report time was not lengthened by the introduction of the PACS. The finding that more historical images were viewed when the PACS was in use indicates that the PACS brought about a positive change in reporting practice.

Bias↗

PubMed1995

Issues in the evaluation of picture archiving and communication systems.

Picture archiving and communication systems (PACS) are an example of the application of computer technology in the medical field. PACS automates image handling in a hospital and has the potential to transform the way radiology is currently performed. This paper focuses on the evaluation of the PACS technology, and considers the claims that have been made for PACS, how these claims might be turned into questions to be addressed by evaluation and the appropriate methods for the evaluation of PACS. A distinction is drawn between evaluation questions for which the hospital is the appropriate focus and those for which the patient is the appropriate focus. The preferred research design is different for hospital focused PACS evaluation and patient-focused evaluation of small scale PACS systems. A contemporaneous experimental comparison within hospitals is the preferred design for the patient-focused evaluation of small scale PACS systems. The patient-focused evaluation of large scale systems and the hospital-focused evaluation of all PACS systems could feasibly be conducted as contemporaneous experimental comparisons between hospitals but the large research costs implied by such a design almost certainly mean that non-contemporaneous, non-experimental comparisons within hospitals are more realistic. The current situation for the PACS technology is that it has potential, but as yet unproven, benefits and a large capital cost. Thus, the primary purpose of funding additional PACS implementations must be to add to the currently small body of evaluation evidence.

Cost Savings↗

PubMed1995

Evaluation of diffuse technologies: the case of digital imaging networks.

There have been significant developments in recent years in the methodologies and methods for the evaluation of a wide range of health technologies. There remain, though, many technologies which are difficult to evaluate. Often the difficulty stems from the complexity of the technologies themselves, which are in effect hybrids, comprising combinations of several distinct elements. In this paper these are termed 'diffuse' technologies, because the different elements exert different costs and effects, often across several different services. Computer networks are one, increasingly important, example of such technologies in health care. While it is possible to evaluate individual elements of such technologies, it is not clear how to evaluate the technology as a whole, where the whole may be greater (or less) than the sum of the parts. The paper outlines a seven-stage framework for the evaluation of diffuse technologies. The general principles of evaluation are illustrated using the example of picture archiving and communication systems (PACS), which are computer systems designed to capture, store and distribute electronic radiological images within a hospital.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗

PubMed1995

Explaining variation in radiologists' reporting times.

This paper describes an investigation into the reasons for variation in the time taken by senior radiologists to complete radiological reports. An observational study of the reporting process at one UK hospital was undertaken for a 25 day period. An independent health service researcher observed the radiology reporting process and collected data on a variety of factors including the time taken to produce the report, the number and nature of all images viewed, the experience of the radiologist, and the number of disturbances that occurred. The nature of the variation in reporting time was explored using both simple comparative statistics and more sophisticated multiple regression techniques. Data were collected on 2345 report observations and the median report time was 117 s. This research provides the first empirical evidence for systematic variation in reporting time. The results confirm the importance of certain factors that were expected to explain report time variation. For example, the results indicate that report time tended to be significantly shorter in reporting sessions that were busy, and significantly longer when the radiologist was disturbed during the reporting process or was training juniors during a reporting session. More surprising were the results indicating that there was no significant difference in report time for reports categorized as urgent or "hot" and those categorized as less urgent or "cold", and that report time appeared to vary systematically depending on the day of the week and on the time of day.

Humans↗