Radiologist, Trainee, and Logistical Factors Impacting the Timeliness of CTA Head and Neck Reporting in Stroke Code Activations

References

1. 1.↵
   1. Hartman J,
   2. Goiney C,
   3. Carlson B, et al

   . ACR Appropriateness Criteria facilitate judicious use of CT angiography for stroke workup in the emergency department. J Am Coll Radiol 2020;17:1230–36 doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2020.04.008 pmid:32360454

   CrossRefPubMed
2. 2.↵
   1. Mayer SA,
   2. Viarasilpa T,
   3. Panyavachiraporn N, et al

   . CTA-for-All: impact of emergency computed tomographic angiography for all patients with stroke presenting within 24 hours of onset. Stroke 2020;51:331–34 doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.119.027356 pmid:31684848

   CrossRefPubMed
3. 3.↵
   1. Vagal A,
   2. Meganathan K,
   3. Kleindorfer DO, et al

   . Increasing use of computed tomographic perfusion and computed tomographic angiograms in acute ischemic stroke from 2006 to 2010. Stroke 2014;45:1029–34 doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.113.004332 pmid:24569815

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
4. 4.↵
   1. Tu LH,
   2. Navaratnam D,
   3. Melnick ER, et al

   . CT with CTA versus MRI in patients presenting to the emergency department with dizziness: analysis using propensity score matching. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2023;221:836–45 doi:10.2214/AJR.23.29617 pmid:37404082

   CrossRefPubMed
5. 5.↵
   1. Tu LH,
   2. Malhotra A,
   3. Venkatesh AK, et al

   . Head and neck CTA utilization: analysis of ordering frequency and nonroutine results communication, with focus on the 50 most common emergency department clinical presentations. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2022;218:544–51 doi:10.2214/AJR.21.26543 pmid:34585611

   CrossRefPubMed
6. 6.↵
   1. Alons IME,
   2. Goudsmit BFJ,
   3. Jellema K, et al

   . Yield of computed tomography (CT) angiography in patients with acute headache, normal neurological examination, and normal non contrast CT: a meta-analysis. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis 2018;27:1077–84 doi:10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2017.11.016 pmid:29277281

   CrossRefPubMed
7. 7.↵
   1. Almekhlafi MA,
   2. Kunz WG,
   3. Menon BK, et al

   . Imaging of patients with suspected large-vessel occlusion at primary stroke centers: available modalities and a suggested approach. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2019;40:396–400 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A5971 pmid:30705072

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
8. 8.↵
   1. Amukotuwa SA,
   2. Straka M,
   3. Smith H, et al

   . Automated detection of intracranial large vessel occlusions on computed tomography angiography. Stroke 2019;50:2790–98 doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.119.026259 pmid:31495328

   CrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   1. Provenzale JM,
   2. Sarikaya B

   . Comparison of test performance characteristics of MRI, MR angiography, and CT angiography in the diagnosis of carotid and vertebral artery dissection: a review of the medical literature. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009;193:1167–74 doi:10.2214/AJR.08.1688 pmid:19770343

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
10. 10.↵
    1. Catalano C,
    2. Passariello R

    1. Hirai T,
    2. Korogi Y,
    3. Takahashi M, et al

    . CT angiography in the assessment of intracranial vessels. In: Catalano C, Passariello R, eds. Multidetector-Row CT Angiography. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag; 2005:55–67
11. 11.↵
    1. ElHabr A,
    2. Merdan S,
    3. Ayer T, et al

    . Increasing utilization of emergency department neuroimaging from 2007 through 2017. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2022;218:165–73 doi:10.2214/AJR.21.25864 pmid:34346786

    CrossRefPubMed
12. 12.↵
    1. Powers WJ,
    2. Rabinstein AA,
    3. Ackerson T, et al

    . Guidelines for the Early Management of Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke: 2019 Update to the 2018 Guidelines for the Early Management of Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Guideline for Healthcare Professionals From the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke 2019;50:e344–418 doi:10.1161/STR.0000000000000211 pmid:31662037

    CrossRefPubMed
13. 13.↵
    1. Sanossian N,
    2. Fu KA,
    3. Liebeskind DS, et al

    . Utilization of emergent neuroimaging for thrombolysis-eligible stroke patients. J Neuroimaging 2017;27:59–64 doi:10.1111/jon.12369 pmid:27300498

    CrossRefPubMed
14. 14.↵
    1. Fasen BAC,
    2. Heijboer RJJ,
    3. Hulsmans F-JH, et al

    . CT angiography in evaluating large-vessel occlusion in acute anterior circulation ischemic stroke: factors associated with diagnostic error in clinical practice. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2020;41:607–11 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A6469 pmid:32165362

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
15. 15.↵
    1. Victor P,
    2. Bian E,
    3. Mamdouh H, et al

    . Upfront vascular imaging in acute stroke: impact on thrombectomy transfer time at a primary stroke center. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis 2024;33:107815 doi:10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2024.107815 pmid:38878844

    CrossRefPubMed
16. 16.↵
    1. Sacks D,
    2. Baxter B,
    3. Campbell BCV, et al

    ; From the American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS), American Society of Neuroradiology (ASNR), Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology Society of Europe (CIRSE), Canadian Interventional Radiology Association (CIRA), Congress of Neurological Surgeons (CNS), European Society of Minimally Invasive Neurological Therapy (ESMINT), European Society of Neuroradiology (ESNR), European Stroke Organization (ESO), Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI), Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR), Society of NeuroInterventional Surgery (SNIS), and World Stroke Organization (WSO). Multisociety Consensus Quality Improvement Revised Consensus Statement for Endovascular Therapy of Acute Ischemic Stroke. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2018;39:E61–76 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A5638 pmid:29773566

    FREE Full Text
17. 17.↵
    1. Edwards EA,
    2. Cote A,
    3. Phelps AS, et al

    . Parents of pediatric radiology patients prefer timely reporting and discussing results with referring providers. Acad Radiol 2020;27:739–43 doi:10.1016/j.acra.2019.07.010 pmid:31420160

    CrossRefPubMed
18. 18.↵
    1. Woolen S,
    2. Kazerooni EA,
    3. Wall A, et al

    . Waiting for radiology test results: patient expectations and emotional disutility. J Am Coll Radiol 2018;15:274–81 doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2017.09.017 pmid:29132998

    CrossRefPubMed
19. 19.↵
    1. Chan KT,
    2. Carroll T,
    3. Linnau KF, et al

    . Expectations among academic clinicians of inpatient imaging turnaround time: does it correlate with satisfaction? Acad Radiol 2015;22:1449–56 doi:10.1016/j.acra.2015.06.019 pmid:26310727

    CrossRefPubMed
20. 20.↵
    1. Basu PA,
    2. Ruiz-Wibbelsmann JA,
    3. Spielman SB, et al

    . Creating a patient-centered imaging service: determining what patients want. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011;196:605–10 doi:10.2214/AJR.10.5333 pmid:21343503

    CrossRefPubMed
21. 21.↵
    1. Zhang L,
    2. Hefke A,
    3. Figiel J, et al

    . Identifying radiological needs of referring clinicians. J Digit Imaging 2013;26:393–401 doi:10.1007/s10278-012-9551-x pmid:23179407

    CrossRefPubMed
22. 22.↵
    1. Ondategui-Parra S,
    2. Erturk SM,
    3. Ros PR

    . Survey of the use of quality indicators in academic radiology departments. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006;187:W451–55 doi:10.2214/AJR.05.1064 pmid:17056874

    CrossRefPubMed
23. 23.↵
    1. Towbin AJ,
    2. Iyer SB,
    3. Brown J, et al

    . Practice policy and quality initiatives: decreasing variability in turnaround time for radiographic studies from the emergency department. Radiographics 2013;33:361–71 doi:10.1148/rg.332125738 pmid:23479701

    CrossRefPubMed
24. 24.↵
    1. Cournane S,
    2. Conway R,
    3. Creagh D, et al

    . Radiology imaging delays as independent predictors of length of hospital stay for emergency medical admissions. Clin Radiol 2016;71:912–18 doi:10.1016/j.crad.2016.03.023 pmid:27210242

    CrossRefPubMed
25. 25.↵
    1. Wang DC,
    2. Parry CR,
    3. Feldman M, et al

    . Acute abdomen in the emergency department: is CT a time-limiting factor? AJR Am J Roentgenol 2015;205:1222–29 doi:10.2214/AJR.14.14057 pmid:26587929

    CrossRefPubMed
26. 26.↵
    1. Shah V,
    2. Chillakuru YR,
    3. Rybkin A, et al

    . Algorithmic prediction of delayed radiology turn-around-time during non-business hours. Acad Radiol 2022;29:e82–90 doi:10.1016/j.acra.2021.05.026 pmid:34187741

    CrossRefPubMed
27. 27.↵
    1. Glover M,
    2. Almeida RR,
    3. Schaefer PW, et al

    . Quantifying the impact of noninterpretive tasks on radiology report turn-around times. J Am Coll Radiol 2017;14:1498–503 doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2017.07.023 pmid:28916177

    CrossRefPubMed
28. 28.↵
    1. Rathnayake S,
    2. Nautsch F,
    3. Goodman TR, et al

    . Effect of radiology study flow on report turnaround time. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2017;209:1308–11 doi:10.2214/AJR.17.18282 pmid:28981363

    CrossRefPubMed
29. 29.↵
    1. McGrath AL,
    2. Dodelzon K,
    3. Awan OA, et al

    . Optimizing radiologist productivity and efficiency: work smarter, not harder. Eur J Radiol 2022;155:110131 doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2021.110131 pmid:35031167

    CrossRefPubMed
30. 30.↵
    1. Do HM,
    2. Spear LG,
    3. Nikpanah M, et al

    . Augmented radiologist workflow improves report value and saves time: a potential model for implementation of artificial intelligence. Acad Radiol 2020;27:96–105 doi:10.1016/j.acra.2019.09.014 pmid:31818390

    CrossRefPubMed
31. 31.↵
    1. Marcovici PA,
    2. Taylor GA

    . Journal Club: structured radiology reports are more complete and more effective than unstructured reports. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2014;203:1265–71 doi:10.2214/AJR.14.12636 pmid:25415704

    CrossRefPubMed
32. 32.↵
    1. Wynn RM,
    2. Howe JL,
    3. Kelahan LC, et al

    . The impact of interruptions on chest radiograph interpretation: effects on reading time and accuracy. Acad Radiol 2018;25:1515–20 doi:10.1016/j.acra.2018.03.016 pmid:29605562

    CrossRefPubMed
33. 33.↵
    1. Harisinghani MG,
    2. Blake MA,
    3. Saksena M, et al

    . Importance and effects of altered workplace ergonomics in modern radiology suites. Radiographics 2004;24:615–27 doi:10.1148/rg.242035089 pmid:15026606

    CrossRefPubMed
34. 34.↵
    1. Velleman T,
    2. Hein S,
    3. Dierckx RA, et al

    . Reading room assistants to reduce workload and interruptions of radiology residents during on-call hours: initial evaluation. Eur J Radiol 2024;173:111381 doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2024.111381 pmid:38428253

    CrossRefPubMed
35. 35.↵
    1. Morgan MB,
    2. Branstetter BF,
    3. Lionetti DM, et al

    . The radiology digital dashboard: effects on report turnaround time. J Digit Imaging 2008;21:50–58 doi:10.1007/s10278-007-9008-9 pmid:17334871

    CrossRefPubMed
36. 36.↵
    1. Alexander R,
    2. Waite S,
    3. Bruno MA, et al

    . Mandating limits on workload, duty, and speed in radiology. Radiology 2022;304:274–82 doi:10.1148/radiol.212631 pmid:35699581

    CrossRefPubMed