Patient encounter time intervals in the evaluation of emergency department patients requiring abdominopelvic CT: oral contrast versus no contrast
- PMID: 15278712
- DOI: 10.1007/s10140-004-0348-1
Patient encounter time intervals in the evaluation of emergency department patients requiring abdominopelvic CT: oral contrast versus no contrast
Abstract
The aim of the study was to assess various time intervals during patient encounters involving unenhanced (NECT) versus oral-contrast-enhanced (CECT) abdominopelvic (A/P) CT performed in the emergency department (ED) on adult patients presenting with acute abdominal pain. Computerized patient order entry and administrative data as well as scans themselves were retrospectively evaluated at a high-volume (107,000 visits per annum) regional medical center urban ED for a period of 30 consecutive days. All adult patients who had CT of abdomen and pelvis for abdominal pain during the 30 days of the study period were included. Data collected included demographic information, time of registration, time of first encounter in the ED, time of CT order, clinical indication for scan, time of scan, time of disposition (i.e., discharge or admit), and final disposition. Patients were excluded if they were less than 16 years old, pregnant, or met criteria for major trauma and evaluation in the trauma suite. Patients were also excluded from analysis if they received more than one scan on the same day (3 patients). Of 183 patients, 102 underwent NECT and 81 CECT. Some of the patients who underwent NECT had urinary colic. Among patients who did not have urinary colic there is a statistically significant difference in the median time intervals between: (1) patient arrival in the ED and evaluation by a physician (NECT 57 min, CECT 84 min, P<0.001); (2) patient exam by the physician and the time the A/P CT was ordered (NECT 35 min, CECT 63 min, P<0.01); (3) receipt of the CT order and the time of the scan (NECT 104 min, CECT 172 min, P<0.001); and (4) time of arrival in ED and disposition (NECT 358 min, CECT 599 min, P<0.001). There are significant time interval differences between CECT and NECT during patient encounters involving adults presenting with abdominal pain to the ED. The differences are greater than the amount of time allotted for opacification of small bowel (90 min). Baseline data such as these may prove useful in assessing the efficacy of scan techniques and improving resource utilization.
Similar articles
-
Prospective comparison of helical CT of the abdomen and pelvis without and with oral contrast in assessing acute abdominal pain in adult Emergency Department patients.Emerg Radiol. 2006 May;12(4):150-7. doi: 10.1007/s10140-006-0474-z. Epub 2006 Apr 21. Emerg Radiol. 2006. PMID: 16738930
-
Limited added utility of performing follow-up contrast-enhanced CT in patients undergoing initial non-enhanced CT for evaluation of flank pain in the emergency department.Emerg Radiol. 2015 Apr;22(2):109-15. doi: 10.1007/s10140-014-1259-4. Epub 2014 Aug 1. Emerg Radiol. 2015. PMID: 25082439
-
Emergency department experience with nonoral contrast computed tomography in the evaluation of patients for appendicitis.J Patient Saf. 2014 Sep;10(3):154-8. doi: 10.1097/PTS.0b013e31829a07ba. J Patient Saf. 2014. PMID: 24080721
-
Accuracy of Nonenhanced CT vs Contrast-Enhanced CT for Diagnosis of Acute Appendicitis in Adults.Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 2021 May-Jun;50(3):315-320. doi: 10.1067/j.cpradiol.2020.01.010. Epub 2020 Jan 9. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 2021. PMID: 32037023 Review.
-
Comparative accuracy of intravenous contrast-enhanced CT versus noncontrast CT plus intravenous contrast-enhanced CT in the detection and characterization of patients with hypervascular liver metastases: a critically appraised topic.Acad Radiol. 2014 Jan;21(1):113-25. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2013.08.023. Acad Radiol. 2014. PMID: 24331274 Review.
Cited by
-
The impact of introducing a no oral contrast abdominopelvic CT examination (NOCAPE) pathway on radiology turn around times, emergency department length of stay, and patient safety.Emerg Radiol. 2014 Dec;21(6):605-13. doi: 10.1007/s10140-014-1240-2. Epub 2014 Jun 6. Emerg Radiol. 2014. PMID: 24902657
-
Root Cause Analysis of Delayed Emergency Department Computed Tomography Scans.West J Emerg Med. 2024 Mar;25(2):226-229. doi: 10.5811/westjem.17831. West J Emerg Med. 2024. PMID: 38596923 Free PMC article.
-
Effect of oral contrast for abdominal computed tomography on emergency department length of stay.Emerg Radiol. 2010 Jul;17(4):267-73. doi: 10.1007/s10140-009-0847-1. Epub 2009 Oct 20. Emerg Radiol. 2010. PMID: 19841952
-
Prospective comparison of helical CT of the abdomen and pelvis without and with oral contrast in assessing acute abdominal pain in adult Emergency Department patients.Emerg Radiol. 2006 May;12(4):150-7. doi: 10.1007/s10140-006-0474-z. Epub 2006 Apr 21. Emerg Radiol. 2006. PMID: 16738930
-
Utility of CT oral contrast administration in the emergency department of a quaternary oncology hospital: diagnostic implications, turnaround times, and assessment of ED physician ordering.Abdom Radiol (NY). 2017 Nov;42(11):2760-2768. doi: 10.1007/s00261-017-1175-7. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2017. PMID: 28523416 Free PMC article.
References
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous