Productivity and cost assessment of computed radiography, digital radiography, and screen-film for outpatient chest examinations.

Abstract

An objective assessment and comparison of computed radiography (CR) versus digital radiography (DR) and screen-film for performing upright chest examinations on outpatients is presented in terms of workflow, productivity, speed of service, and potential cost justification. Perceived ease of use and workflow of each device is collected via a technologist opinion survey. Productivity is measured as the rate of patient throughput from normalized timing studies. The overall speed of service is calculated from the time of examination ordering as stamped in the radiology information system (RIS), to the time of image availability on the picture archiving and communication system (PACS), to the time of interpretation rendered (from the RIS). A cost comparison is discussed in terms of potential productivity gains and device expenditures. Comparative results of a screen-film (analog) dedicated chest unit versus a CR reader and a DR dedicated chest unit show a higher patient throughput for the digital systems. A mean of 8.2 patients were moved through the analog chest room per hour, versus 9.2 patients per hour using the CR system and 10.7 patients per hour with the DR system. This represents a 12% increase in patient throughput for CR over screen-film; a 30% increase in patient throughput for DR over screen-film, which is statistically significant; and a 16% increase in patient throughput for DR over CR, which is not statistically significant. Measured time to image availability for interpretation is much faster for both CR and DR versus screen-film, with the mean minutes to image availability calculated as 29.2 +/- 14.3 min for screen-film, 6.7 +/- 1.5 min for CR, and 5.7 +/- 2.5 min for DR. This represents an improved time to image availability of 77% for CR over screen-film, 80% for DR over screen-film, and 15% for DR over CR. These results are statistically significant (P <.0001) for both CR over screen-film and DR over screen-film but not statistically significant for DR over CR. A comparison of the digital technology costs illustrates that the high cost of DR may not be justifiable unless a facility has a steady high patient volume to run the device at or near 100% productivity. Both CR and DR can improve workflow and productivity over analog screen-film in a PACS for delivery of projection radiography services in an outpatient environment. Cost justification for DR over CR appears to be tied predominantly to high patient volume and continuous rather than sporadic use patterns.