Cargando…

Retrospective review of the use and costs of routine chest x rays in a trauma setting

INTRODUCTION: Chest x-rays (CXR) are routinely obtained on blunt trauma patients. Many patients also receive additional imaging with thoracic computed tomography scans for other indications. We hypothesized that in hemodynamically normal, awake and alert blunt trauma patients, CXR can be deferred in...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ziegler, Kristina, Feeney, James M, Desai, Colleen, Sharpio, David, Marshall, Wiiliam T, Twohig, Michael
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3658884/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23656999
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1752-2897-7-2
_version_ 1782270354210684928
author Ziegler, Kristina
Feeney, James M
Desai, Colleen
Sharpio, David
Marshall, Wiiliam T
Twohig, Michael
author_facet Ziegler, Kristina
Feeney, James M
Desai, Colleen
Sharpio, David
Marshall, Wiiliam T
Twohig, Michael
author_sort Ziegler, Kristina
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Chest x-rays (CXR) are routinely obtained on blunt trauma patients. Many patients also receive additional imaging with thoracic computed tomography scans for other indications. We hypothesized that in hemodynamically normal, awake and alert blunt trauma patients, CXR can be deferred in those who will also receive a TCT with significant cost savings. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the charts of trauma patients from 1/1/2010 to 12/31/2010 who received both a CXR and TCT in the trauma room. Billing and cost data were collected from various hospital sources. RESULTS: 239 patients who met inclusion and exclusion criteria and received CXR and TCT between 1/1/2010 and 12/31/2010. The sensitivity of CXR was 19% (95% CI: 10.8% to 31%) and the specificity was 91.7% (95% CI: 86.7% to 95%). The false positive rate for CXR was 35.8% (95% CI: 21.7% to 52.8%) and the false negative rate was 24.5% (95% CI: 18.8% to 31.2%). The precision of CXR was 42.3% (95% CI: 25.5% to 61.1%) and the overall accuracy was 74.1% (95% CI: 68.1% to 79.2%). If routine chest xray were eliminated in these patients, the estimated cost savings ranged from $14,641 to $142,185, using three different methods of cost analysis. CONCLUSIONS: In patients who are hemodynamically normal and who will be receiving a TCT, deferring a CXR would result in an estimated cost savings up to $142,185. Additionally, TCT is more sensitive and specific than CXR in identifying injuries in patients who have sustained blunt trauma to the thorax.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3658884
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-36588842013-05-21 Retrospective review of the use and costs of routine chest x rays in a trauma setting Ziegler, Kristina Feeney, James M Desai, Colleen Sharpio, David Marshall, Wiiliam T Twohig, Michael J Trauma Manag Outcomes Research INTRODUCTION: Chest x-rays (CXR) are routinely obtained on blunt trauma patients. Many patients also receive additional imaging with thoracic computed tomography scans for other indications. We hypothesized that in hemodynamically normal, awake and alert blunt trauma patients, CXR can be deferred in those who will also receive a TCT with significant cost savings. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the charts of trauma patients from 1/1/2010 to 12/31/2010 who received both a CXR and TCT in the trauma room. Billing and cost data were collected from various hospital sources. RESULTS: 239 patients who met inclusion and exclusion criteria and received CXR and TCT between 1/1/2010 and 12/31/2010. The sensitivity of CXR was 19% (95% CI: 10.8% to 31%) and the specificity was 91.7% (95% CI: 86.7% to 95%). The false positive rate for CXR was 35.8% (95% CI: 21.7% to 52.8%) and the false negative rate was 24.5% (95% CI: 18.8% to 31.2%). The precision of CXR was 42.3% (95% CI: 25.5% to 61.1%) and the overall accuracy was 74.1% (95% CI: 68.1% to 79.2%). If routine chest xray were eliminated in these patients, the estimated cost savings ranged from $14,641 to $142,185, using three different methods of cost analysis. CONCLUSIONS: In patients who are hemodynamically normal and who will be receiving a TCT, deferring a CXR would result in an estimated cost savings up to $142,185. Additionally, TCT is more sensitive and specific than CXR in identifying injuries in patients who have sustained blunt trauma to the thorax. BioMed Central 2013-05-09 /pmc/articles/PMC3658884/ /pubmed/23656999 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1752-2897-7-2 Text en Copyright © 2013 Ziegler et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research
Ziegler, Kristina
Feeney, James M
Desai, Colleen
Sharpio, David
Marshall, Wiiliam T
Twohig, Michael
Retrospective review of the use and costs of routine chest x rays in a trauma setting
title Retrospective review of the use and costs of routine chest x rays in a trauma setting
title_full Retrospective review of the use and costs of routine chest x rays in a trauma setting
title_fullStr Retrospective review of the use and costs of routine chest x rays in a trauma setting
title_full_unstemmed Retrospective review of the use and costs of routine chest x rays in a trauma setting
title_short Retrospective review of the use and costs of routine chest x rays in a trauma setting
title_sort retrospective review of the use and costs of routine chest x rays in a trauma setting
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3658884/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23656999
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1752-2897-7-2
work_keys_str_mv AT zieglerkristina retrospectivereviewoftheuseandcostsofroutinechestxraysinatraumasetting
AT feeneyjamesm retrospectivereviewoftheuseandcostsofroutinechestxraysinatraumasetting
AT desaicolleen retrospectivereviewoftheuseandcostsofroutinechestxraysinatraumasetting
AT sharpiodavid retrospectivereviewoftheuseandcostsofroutinechestxraysinatraumasetting
AT marshallwiiliamt retrospectivereviewoftheuseandcostsofroutinechestxraysinatraumasetting
AT twohigmichael retrospectivereviewoftheuseandcostsofroutinechestxraysinatraumasetting