Cargando…
PATTERNS OF ONSITE MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING EQUIPMENT AMONG ORTHOPEDIC PRACTICES
Background: Despite ongoing policy debate, little is known about the growth in orthopedic surgery practices with onsite magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) capacity, or practice characteristics associated with the acquisition of in-office MRI equipment. Methods: In July 2012, American Academy of Orthop...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Cambridge University Press
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4762239/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26763149 http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0266462315000550 |
_version_ | 1782417082201145344 |
---|---|
author | Ohsfeldt, Robert Li, Pengxiang Schneider, John |
author_facet | Ohsfeldt, Robert Li, Pengxiang Schneider, John |
author_sort | Ohsfeldt, Robert |
collection | PubMed |
description | Background: Despite ongoing policy debate, little is known about the growth in orthopedic surgery practices with onsite magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) capacity, or practice characteristics associated with the acquisition of in-office MRI equipment. Methods: In July 2012, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) member practices received a web-based survey requesting general information about their practice, such as number practice providers authorized to order MRIs, the type of onsite MRI capacity present (if any), and the date of acquisition for the MRI equipment. Survey responses were augmented with county-level measures of practice area characteristics as of the year of first onsite MRI acquisition (or 2012 for practices without an onsite MRI). Results: The survey obtained usable responses from 740 orthopedic practices, which were geographically representative of AAOS member practices. Forty percent (298) reported onsite MRI capacity. Onsite MRI acquisition occurred at a steady pace over 2000–2012, with no dramatic increase occurring in any particular year over that period. Multivariate logistic regression indicated that practice size (number of providers) was the most important factor affecting the likelihood of onsite MRI acquisition. There was no association between onsite MRI acquisition and any of the county-level practice area characteristics included in the analysis. Conclusions: Orthopedic practices acquiring onsite MRI equipment on average are much larger than practices without onsite MRI capacity. Larger practices may be more likely to attain the economies of scale necessary to absorb the fixed costs associated with onsite MRI acquisition. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4762239 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | Cambridge University Press |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-47622392016-03-07 PATTERNS OF ONSITE MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING EQUIPMENT AMONG ORTHOPEDIC PRACTICES Ohsfeldt, Robert Li, Pengxiang Schneider, John Int J Technol Assess Health Care Policies Background: Despite ongoing policy debate, little is known about the growth in orthopedic surgery practices with onsite magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) capacity, or practice characteristics associated with the acquisition of in-office MRI equipment. Methods: In July 2012, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) member practices received a web-based survey requesting general information about their practice, such as number practice providers authorized to order MRIs, the type of onsite MRI capacity present (if any), and the date of acquisition for the MRI equipment. Survey responses were augmented with county-level measures of practice area characteristics as of the year of first onsite MRI acquisition (or 2012 for practices without an onsite MRI). Results: The survey obtained usable responses from 740 orthopedic practices, which were geographically representative of AAOS member practices. Forty percent (298) reported onsite MRI capacity. Onsite MRI acquisition occurred at a steady pace over 2000–2012, with no dramatic increase occurring in any particular year over that period. Multivariate logistic regression indicated that practice size (number of providers) was the most important factor affecting the likelihood of onsite MRI acquisition. There was no association between onsite MRI acquisition and any of the county-level practice area characteristics included in the analysis. Conclusions: Orthopedic practices acquiring onsite MRI equipment on average are much larger than practices without onsite MRI capacity. Larger practices may be more likely to attain the economies of scale necessary to absorb the fixed costs associated with onsite MRI acquisition. Cambridge University Press 2015 /pmc/articles/PMC4762239/ /pubmed/26763149 http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0266462315000550 Text en © Cambridge University Press 2016 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Policies Ohsfeldt, Robert Li, Pengxiang Schneider, John PATTERNS OF ONSITE MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING EQUIPMENT AMONG ORTHOPEDIC PRACTICES |
title | PATTERNS OF ONSITE MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING EQUIPMENT AMONG ORTHOPEDIC PRACTICES |
title_full | PATTERNS OF ONSITE MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING EQUIPMENT AMONG ORTHOPEDIC PRACTICES |
title_fullStr | PATTERNS OF ONSITE MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING EQUIPMENT AMONG ORTHOPEDIC PRACTICES |
title_full_unstemmed | PATTERNS OF ONSITE MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING EQUIPMENT AMONG ORTHOPEDIC PRACTICES |
title_short | PATTERNS OF ONSITE MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING EQUIPMENT AMONG ORTHOPEDIC PRACTICES |
title_sort | patterns of onsite magnetic resonance imaging equipment among orthopedic practices |
topic | Policies |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4762239/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26763149 http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0266462315000550 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT ohsfeldtrobert patternsofonsitemagneticresonanceimagingequipmentamongorthopedicpractices AT lipengxiang patternsofonsitemagneticresonanceimagingequipmentamongorthopedicpractices AT schneiderjohn patternsofonsitemagneticresonanceimagingequipmentamongorthopedicpractices |