4.6 Article

Radiology departments as COVID-19 entry-door might improve healthcare efficacy and efficiency, and emergency department safety

期刊

INSIGHTS INTO IMAGING
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1186/s13244-020-00954-8

关键词

Coronavirus; COVID-19; Radiology; Emergency medicine; Primary health care

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The pcHRRS service can reduce the number of respiratory patients in the ED, expedite decision-making, and facilitate admissions while maintaining timely responses for emergency patients.
Background Possible COVID-19 pneumonia patients (ppCOVID-19) generally overwhelmed emergency departments (EDs) during the first COVID-19 wave. Home-confinement and primary-care phone follow-up was the first-level regional policy for preventing EDs to collapse. But when X-rays were needed, the traditional outpatient workflow at the radiology department was inefficient and potential interpersonal infections were of concern. We aimed to assess the efficiency of a primary-care high-resolution radiology service (pcHRRS) for ppCOVID-19 in terms of time at hospital and decision's reliability. Methods We assessed 849 consecutive ppCOVID-19 patients, 418 through the pcHRRS (home-confined ppCOVID-19 with negative-group 1- and positive-group 2-X-rays) and 431 arriving with respiratory symptoms to the ED by themselves (group 3). The pcHRRS provided X-rays and oximetry in an only-one-patient agenda. Radiologists made next-step decisions (group 1: pneumonia negative, home-confinement follow-up; group 2: pneumonia positive, ED assessment) according to X-ray results. We used ANOVA and Bonferroni correction, Student T, Chi(2) tests to analyse changes in the ED workload, time-to-decision differences between groups, potential delays in patients acceding through the ED, and pcHRRS performance for deciding admission. Results The pcHRRS halved ED respiratory patients (49.2%), allowed faster decisions (group 1 vs. home-discharged group 2 and group 3 patients: 0:41 +/- 1:05 h; 3:36 +/- 2:58 h; 3:50 +/- 3:16 h; group 1 vs. all group 2 and group 3 patients: 0:41 +/- 1:05 h; 5.25 +/- 3.08; 5:36 +/- 4:36 h; group 2 vs. group 3 admitted patients: 5:27 +/- 3:08 h vs. 7:42 +/- 5:02 h; all p < 0.001) and prompted admission (84/93, 90.3%) while maintaining time response for ED patients. Conclusions Our pcHRRS may be a more efficient entry-door for ppCOVID-19 by decreasing ED patients and making expedited decisions while guaranteeing social distance.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据