Abstract
Purpose Common reasons for avoiding portable noninvasive vascular laboratory (VL) studies include degraded study quality, repetitive stress injuries, the wear and tear of equipment, and inefficiency. We examined the efficiency of portable VL studies in the context of productivity and potential loss of revenue. Methods From January 2005 to March 2005, sonographers in the VL recorded the time required to conduct “in-lab” and portable studies with conventional full-size scanners. A blended average based on frequency of portable studies within different areas of the hospital was used to determine the additional time required to conduct a portable study. The sonographer also made a qualitative assessment on the necessity of the portable study in each case. Results The VL performed an average of 31 portable studies (18% of total studies) per week. On average, portable testing increased overall study time by 17.7 min per test and 1.8 h per day, resulting in 9.1 h of additional study time lost per week. The potential increase in study volume could result in incremental annual gross revenue of $41,204 to $77,258 for the VL. The sonographers estimated that 24% to 45% of portable procedures could have been conducted in the lab. Conclusions In addition to suboptimal imaging and sonographer/equipment wear and tear, the current practice of unrestricted portable tests performed with existing bulky equipment is economically inefficient. New “disruptive” technology, leading to high-quality bedside scanning and limiting portable studies to patients who genuinely need it, will allow for greater productivity, decrease wait time for elective outpatients, and generate incremental revenue for the VL.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call