Recovery of outpatient imaging utilization during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic

ObjectiveDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, Radiology practices experienced marked reductions in outpatient imaging volumes. Our purpose was to evaluate the timing, rate, and degree of recovery of outpatient imaging during the first wave of the pandemic. We also sought to ascertain the relationship of outpatient imaging recovery to the incidence of COVID-19 cases.MethodsRetrospective study of outpatient imaging volumes in a large healthcare system was performed from January 1, 2019-August 25, 2020. Dataset was split to compare Pre-COVID (weeks 1–9), Peak-COVID (weeks 10–15) and Recovery-COVID (weeks 16–34) periods. Chi-square and Independent-samples t-tests compared weekly outpatient imaging volumes in 2020 and 2019. Regression analyses assessed the rate of decline and recovery in Peak-COVID and Recovery-COVID periods, respectively.ResultsTotal outpatient imaging volume in 2020 (weeks 1–34) was 327,738 exams, compared to 440,314 in 2019. The 2020 mean weekly imaging volumes were significantly decreased in Peak-COVID (p = 0.0148) and Recovery-COVID (p = 0.0003) periods. Mean weekly decline rate was −2580 exams/week and recovery rate was +617 exams/week. The 2020 Post-COVID (weeks 10–34) period had an average decrease of 36.5% (4813.4/13,178.6) imaging exams/week and total estimated decrease of 120,335 exams. Significant inverse correlation (−0.8338, p < 0.0001) was seen between positive-tested COVID-19 cases and imaging utilization with 1-week lag during Post-COVID (weeks 10–34) period.ConclusionRecovery of outpatient imaging volume during the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic showed a gradual return to pre-pandemic levels over the course of 3–4 months. The rate of imaging utilization was inversely associated with new positive-tested COVID-19 cases with a 1-week lag.     

Radiology Imaging Volume Changes During Discrete COVID-19 Pandemic Waves: Implications for the Delta Variant of Coronavirus and Future Pandemics

PurposeThe aim of this study was to evaluate radiology imaging volumes at distinct time periods throughout the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic as a function of regional COVID-19 hospitalizations.MethodsRadiology imaging volumes and statewide COVID-19 hospitalizations were collected, and four 28-day time periods throughout the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020 were analyzed: pre–COVID-19 in January, the “first wave” of COVID-19 hospitalizations in April, the “recovery” time period in the summer of 2020 with a relative nadir of COVID-19 hospitalizations, and the “third wave” of COVID-19 hospitalizations in November. Imaging studies were categorized as inpatient, outpatient, or emergency department on the basis of patient location at the time of acquisition. A Mann-Whitney U test was performed to compare daily imaging volumes during each discrete 28-day time period.ResultsImaging volumes overall during the first wave of COVID-19 infections were 55% (11,098/20,011; P < .001) of pre–COVID-19 imaging volumes. Overall imaging volumes returned during the recovery time period to 99% (19,915/20,011; P = .725), and third-wave imaging volumes compared with the pre–COVID-19 period were significantly lower in the emergency department at 88.8% (7,951/8,955; P < .001), significantly higher for outpatients at 115.7% (8,818/7,621; P = .008), not significantly different for inpatients at 106% (3,650/3,435; P = .053), and overall unchanged when aggregated together at 102% (20,419/20,011; P = .629).ConclusionsMedical imaging rebounded after the first wave of COVID-19 hospitalizations, with relative stability of utilization over the ensuing phases of the pandemic. As widespread COVID-19 vaccination continues to occur, future surges in COVID-19 hospitalizations will likely have a negligible impact on imaging utilization.     

Acute Appendicitis During Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Changes in Clinical Presentation and CT Findings

BackgroundQuarantine and stay-at-home orders are strategies that many countries used during the acute pandemic period of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) to prevent disease dissemination, health system overload, and mortality. However, there are concerns that patients did not seek necessary health care because of these mandates.PurposeTo evaluate the differences in the clinical presentation of acute appendicitis and CT findings related to these cases between the COVID-19 acute pandemic period and nonpandemic period.Materials and MethodsA retrospective observational study was performed to compare the acute pandemic period (March 23, 2020, to May 4, 2020) versus the same period the year before (March 23, 2019, to May 4, 2019). The proportion of appendicitis diagnosed by CT and level of severity of the disease were reviewed in each case. Univariate and bivariate analyses were performed to identify significant differences between the two groups.ResultsA total of 196 abdominal CT scans performed due to suspected acute appendicitis were evaluated: 55 from the acute pandemic period and 141 from the nonpandemic period. The proportion of acute appendicitis diagnosed by abdominal CT was higher in the acute pandemic period versus the nonpandemic period: 45.5% versus 29.8% (P = .038). The severity of the diagnosed appendicitis was higher during the acute pandemic period: 92% versus 57.1% (P = .003).ConclusionDuring the acute COVID-19 pandemic period, fewer patients presented with acute appendicitis to the emergency room, and those who did presented at a more severe stage of the disease.     

The impact of COVID-19 quarantine efforts on emergency radiology and trauma cases

ObjectiveAmidst COVID-19 pandemic, many states have issued stay at home advisories and non-essential business closures to limit public exposure. During this “quarantine” period, it is important to understand the volume and types of emergency/trauma radiology cases to better prepare for the continuing and future pandemics. This study demonstrates new trends in pathologies and an overall increase in positive exams.MethodsA retrospective review of emergency department's imaging during the initial two weeks of this state's quarantine period, 3/23/2020–4/5/2020 was compared to similar dates of the previous year (“pre-quarantine” period), 3/25/2019–4/7/2019. One thousand emergency radiology and 991 trauma cases were evaluated. Of the emergency radiology cases 500 studies from each period were assessed, and from the trauma cases, 783 cases from pre-quarantine and 315 from the quarantine period were examined. Chi-square analysis was performed to assess for statistical significance.ResultsOverall there were 43.0% fewer emergency radiology studies performed during the quarantine period (n = 4530) compared to pre-quarantine period (n = 2585). Additionally, the number of positive cases was significantly higher (P = 0.0001) during the quarantine period (43.0%) compared to the pre-quarantine period (30.2%). Several trends in types of trauma were observed, including a significant increase in domestic violence during the quarantine period (P = 0.0081).DiscussionDifferent volumes and types of emergency/trauma imaging cases were observed during the recent quarantine period. Findings may assist emergency radiology departments to plan for future pandemics or COVID-19 resurgences by offering evidence of the types and volume of emergency radiology cases one might expect.     

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on clinical radiography practice in low resource settings: The Ghanaian radiographers’ perspective

IntroductionThe COVID-19 pandemic has altered the professional practice of all healthcare workers, including radiographers. In the pandemic, clinical practice of radiographers was centred mostly on chest imaging of COVID-19 patients and radiotherapy treatment care delivery to those with cancer. This study aimed to assess the radiographers’ perspective on the impact of the pandemic on their wellbeing and imaging service delivery in Ghana.MethodsA cross-sectional survey of practising radiographers in Ghana was conducted online from March 26th to May 6th, 2020. A previously validated questionnaire that sought information regarding demographics, general perspectives on personal and professional impact of the pandemic was used as the research instrument. Data obtained was analysed using Microsoft Excel® 2016.ResultsA response rate of 57.3% (134/234) was obtained. Of the respondents, 75.4% (n = 101) reported to have started experiencing high levels of workplace-related stress after the outbreak. Three-quarters (n = 98, 73.1%) of respondents reported limited access to any form of psychosocial support systems at work during the study period. Half (n = 67, 50%) of the respondents reported a decline in general workload during the study period while only a minority (n = 18, 13.4%) reported an increase in workload due to COVID-19 cases.ConclusionThis national survey indicated that majority of the workforce started experiencing coronavirus-specific workplace-related stress after the outbreak. Albeit speculative, low patient confidence and fear of contracting the COVID-19 infection on hospital attendance contributed to the decline in general workload during the study period.Implications for practiceIn order to mitigate the burden of workplace-related stress on frontline workers, including radiographers, and in keeping to standard practices for staff mental wellbeing and patient safety, institutional support structures are necessary in similar future pandemics.     

Change in retinal vessel diameter and choroidal thickness in patients with severe COVID-19: Change In Retinal Parameters In Patients With Severe COVID-19

Purpose: To compare the differences in retinal vascular structure and choroidal thickness between the active disease and post-recovery periods in COVID-19 patients and healthy controls.Material and Methods: This prospective, cross-sectional study included 30 eyes from 30 patients with severe COVID-19 and 30 eyes of 30 sex-matched healthy controls. Central macular thickness (CMT), subfoveal choroidal thickness (CT) and retinal vascular changes of patients were measured after positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) (where the patient had COVID-19-related symptoms) and then three months after two negative PCRs. Laboratory parameters, including C-reactive protein and d-dimer levels, were also recorded.Results: The mean age of the patients was 47.90 ± 9.06 years in patients group, 49.07 ± 8.41 years in control goups (p = 0.467). In terms of choroidal thicknesses subfoveal, nasal and temporal region were significantly higher in the active disease period than control group (p = 0.019, p = 0.036, p = 0.003, respectively). When the after recovery period was compared with the control group in terms of choroidal thickness, although the choroidal thickness was higher in all regions, this difference was not found statistically significant. There was no statistically significant difference in CMT between groups (p = 0.506).The mean venous and arterial wall thicknesses were significantly higher in the active period than after recovery (p = 0.023, p = 0.013, respectively) but there were no differences between after recovery and control groups in the pairwise comparison (p = 0.851, p = 0.715, respectively).Conclusion: In patients with severe COVID-19, there are changes in thickness of the choroid and retinal vessel walls. While vascular wall thickness increases due to inflammation, the absence of lumen changes may be associated with hemodynamic variables.     

Impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak on radiology research: An Italian survey

PurposeTo understand how COVID-19 pandemic has changed radiology research in Italy.MethodsA questionnaire (n = 19 questions) was sent to all members of the Italian Society of Radiology two months after the first Italian national lockdown was lifted.ResultsA total of 327 Italian radiologists took part in the survey (mean age: 49 ± 12 years). After national lockdown, the working-flow came back to normal in the vast majority of cases (285/327, 87.2%). Participants reported that a total of 462 radiological trials were recruiting patients at their institutions prior to COVID-19 outbreak, of which 332 (71.9%) were stopped during the emergency. On the other hand, 252 radiological trials have been started during the pandemic, of which 156 were non-COVID-19 trials (61.9%) and 96 were focused on COVID-19 patients (38.2%). The majority of radiologists surveyed (61.5%) do not conduct research. Of the radiologists who carried on research activities, participants reported a significant increase of the number of hours per week spent for research purposes during national lockdown (mean 4.5 ± 8.9 h during lockdown vs. 3.3 ± 6.8 h before lockdown; p = .046), followed by a significant drop after the lockdown was lifted (3.2 ± 6.5 h per week, p = .035). During national lockdown, 15.6% of participants started new review articles and completed old papers, 14.1% completed old works, and 8.9% started new review articles. Ninety-six surveyed radiologists (29.3%) declared to have submitted at least one article during COVID-19 emergency.ConclusionThis study shows the need to support radiology research in challenging scenarios like COVID-19 emergency.     

Spanish radiographers’ concerns about the COVID-19 pandemic

IntroductionThe current outbreak of COVID-19 has caused worldwide healthcare and social emergency in which healthcare professionals were under extreme work conditions while being fearful of becoming infected or spreading the disease to their relatives. The perceived threat of COVID-19 has the potential to cause severe psychological maladjustment. The aim of the study is to explore Spanish radiographers’ concerns about the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsThis study was quantitative, observational and cross-sectional. The sample was made up of 546 radiographers working in Spain during the outbreak. The instrument used for analysis was an ad hoc questionnaire with socio-demographic questions and the questionnaire on perception of threat from COVID-19 validate to spanish healthcare professionals.ResultsThe sample consisted of 70.1% of female, 29.7% of male and 0.2% undeclare sex participants. The results showed a high level of a perceived threat from COVID-19 (7.57 ± 0.088), furthermore we observed a high level of threat about the possibility of infecting family members (8.49 ± 0.25), patients (8.33 ± 0.086), and coworkers (8.35 ± 0.084). Furthermore, females have a higher level of a perception of threat to spread infection between patients (r = ?0.136; p = 0.001) and coworkers (r = ?0.118; p = 0.006), than males.ConclusionCOVID-19 pandemic is perceived as a serious threat, being especially concerned about the threat of spreading the infection to family, coworkers, and patients. The perception of risk depends partly on professionals’ gender and family responsibilities.Implications for practiceOur findings suggest that it is recommended that healthcare professionals receive formation to reinforce and improve their emotional competencies for coping successfully with potentially stressful situations like COVI19 pandemic.     

Patients characteristics related to screening mammography cancellation and rescheduling rates during the COVID-19 pandemic

PurposeTo identify patient characteristics associated with screening mammography cancellations and rescheduling during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsScheduled screening mammograms during three time periods were retrospectively reviewed: state-mandated shutdown (3/17/2020-6/16/2020) during which screening mammography was cancelled, a period of 2 months immediately after screening mammography resumed (6/17/2020-8/16/2020), and a representative period prior to COVID-19 (6/17/2019-8/16/2019). Relative risk of cancellation before COVID-19 and after reopening was compared for age, race/ethnicity, insurance, history of chronic disease, and exam location, controlling for other collected variables. Risk of failure to reschedule was similarly compared between all 3 time periods.ResultsOverall cancellation rate after reopening was higher than before shutdown (7663/16595, 46% vs 5807/15792, 37%; p < 0.001). Relative risk of cancellation after reopening increased with age (1.20 vs 1.27 vs 1.36 for ages at 25th, 50th, and 75th quartile or 53, 61, and 70 years, respectively, p < 0.001). Relative risk of cancellation was also higher among Medicare patients (1.41) compared to Medicaid and those with other providers (1.26 and 1.21, respectively, p < 0.001) and non-whites compared to whites (1.34 vs 1.25, p = 0.03). Rescheduling rate during shutdown was higher than before COVID-19 and after reopening for all patients (10,658/13593, 78%, 3569/5807, 61%, and 4243/7663, respectively, 55%, p < 0.001). Relative risk of failure to reschedule missed mammogram was higher in hospitals compared to outpatient settings both during shutdown and after reopening (0.62 vs 0.54, p = 0.005 and 1.29 vs 1.03, p < 0.001, respectively).ConclusionMinority race/ethnicity, Medicare insurance, and advanced age were associated with increased risk of screening mammogram cancellation during COVID-19.     

Identifying Factors Important to Patients for Resuming Elective Imaging During the COVID-19 Pandemic

PurposeTo identify factors important to patients for their return to elective imaging during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.MethodsIn all, 249 patients had elective MRIs postponed from March 23, 2020, to April 24, 2020, because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Of these patients, 99 completed a 22-question survey about living arrangement and health care follow-up, effect of imaging postponement, safety of imaging, and factors important for elective imaging. Mann-Whitney U, Fisher’s exact, χ² tests, and logistic regression analyses were performed. Statistical significance was set to P ≤ .05 with Bonferroni correction applied.ResultsOverall, 68% of patients felt imaging postponement had no impact or a small impact on health, 68% felt it was fairly or extremely safe to obtain imaging, and 53% thought there was no difference in safety between hospital-based and outpatient locations. Patients who already had imaging performed or rescheduled were more likely to feel it was safe to get an MRI (odds ratio [OR] 3.267, P = .028) and that the hospital setting was safe (OR 3.976, P = .004). Staff friendliness was the most important factor related to an imaging center visit (95% fairly or extremely important). Use of masks by staff was the top infection prevention measure (94% fairly or extremely important). Likelihood of rescheduling imaging decreased if a short waiting time was important (OR = 0.107, P = .030).ConclusionAs patients begin to feel that it is safe to obtain imaging examinations during the COVID-19 pandemic, many factors important to their imaging experience can be considered by radiology practices when developing new strategies to conduct elective imaging.     

Imaging Utilization During the COVID-19 Pandemic Highlights Socioeconomic Health Disparities

ObjectiveThe devastating impact from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic highlights long-standing socioeconomic health disparities in the United States. The purpose of this study was to evaluate socioeconomic factors related to imaging utilization during the pandemic.MethodsRetrospective review of consecutive imaging examinations was performed from January 1, 2019, to May 31, 2020, across all service locations (inpatient, emergency, outpatient). Patient level data were provided for socioeconomic factors (age, sex, race, insurance status, residential zip code). Residential zip code was used to assign median income level. The weekly total imaging volumes in 2020 and 2019 were plotted from January 1 to May 31 stratified by socioeconomic factors to demonstrate the trends during the pre-COVID-19 (January 1 to February 28) and post-COVID-19 (March 1 to May 31) periods. Independent-samples t tests were used to statistically compare the 2020 and 2019 socioeconomic groups.ResultsCompared with 2019, the 2020 total imaging volume in the post-COVID-19 period revealed statistically significant increased imaging utilization in patients who are aged 60 to 79 years (P = .0025), are male (P < .0001), are non-White (Black, Asian, other, unknown; P < .05), are covered by Medicaid or uninsured (P < .05), and have income below $80,000 (P < .05). However, there was a significant decrease in imaging utilization among patients who are younger (<18 years old; P < .0001), are female (P < .0001), are White (P = .0003), are commercially insured (P < .0001), and have income ≥$80,000 (P < .05).DiscussionDuring the pandemic, there was a significant change in imaging utilization varying by socioeconomic factors, consistent with the known health disparities observed in the prevalence of COVID-19. These findings could have significant implications in directing utilization of resources during the pandemic and subsequent recovery.     

Investigation of changes in retinal vascular parameters and choroidal vascular index values during the early recovery period of COVID-19: The COVID-OCTA study

BackgroundCOVID-19 effects microvasculature in many tissues. This study investigated whether the choroidal structure is also affected.MethodsThis cross-sectional study included 80 patients with COVID-19 and the same number of age- and gender-matched healthy individuals. All participants' right eye measurements were examined. Optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) was used for imaging. Otherwise, two independent researchers used the Choroidal vascular index (CVI) for choroidal parameters calculation.ResultsSuperior and deep flow values were lower in the COVID-19 group than in the control group, and vascular density (VD) values were lower in all regions in this group. Except for the superior mean VD, there was no statistically significant difference (p = 0.003). However, the COVID-19 group had significantly lower subfoveal choroidal thickness (SFChT) measurements than the control group (p = 0.001). In addition, no significant difference was observed between the groups in evaluating mean CVI values (p>0.05).ConclusionNoninvasive diagnostic tools such as OCTA and EDI-OCT can be used to monitor early changes in diseases affecting microvessels, such as from COVID-19.     

Impact of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic on Imaging Case Volumes

ObjectiveThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had significant economic impact on radiology with markedly decreased imaging case volumes. The purpose of this study was to quantify the imaging volumes during the COVID-19 pandemic across patient service locations and imaging modality types.MethodsImaging case volumes in a large health care system were retrospectively studied, analyzing weekly imaging volumes by patient service locations (emergency department, inpatient, outpatient) and modality types (x-ray, mammography, CT, MRI, ultrasound, interventional radiology, nuclear medicine) in years 2020 and 2019. The data set was split to compare pre-COVID-19 (weeks 1-9) and post-COVID-19 (weeks 10-16) periods. Independent-samples t tests compared the mean weekly volumes in 2020 and 2019.ResultsTotal imaging volume in 2020 (weeks 1-16) declined by 12.29% (from 522,645 to 458,438) compared with 2019. Post-COVID-19 (weeks 10-16) revealed a greater decrease (28.10%) in imaging volumes across all patient service locations (range 13.60%-56.59%) and modality types (range 14.22%-58.42%). Total mean weekly volume in 2020 post-COVID-19 (24,383 [95% confidence interval 19,478-29,288]) was statistically reduced (P = .003) compared with 33,913 [95% confidence interval 33,429-34,396] in 2019 across all patient service locations and modality types. The greatest decline in 2020 was seen at week 16 specifically for outpatient imaging (88%) affecting all modality types: mammography (94%), nuclear medicine (85%), MRI (74%), ultrasound (64%), interventional (56%), CT (46%), and x-ray (22%).DiscussionBecause the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic remains uncertain, these results may assist in guiding short- and long-term practice decisions based on the magnitude of imaging volume decline across different patient service locations and specific imaging modality types.     

Mediastinal lymphadenopathy may predict 30-day mortality in patients with COVID-19

PurposeThere is scarce data on the impact of the presence of mediastinal lymphadenopathy on the prognosis of coronavirus-disease 2019 (COVID-19). We aimed to investigate whether its presence is associated with increased risk for 30-day mortality in a large group of patients with COVID-19.MethodIn this retrospective cross-sectional study, 650 adult laboratory-confirmed hospitalized COVID-19 patients were included. Patients with comorbidities that may cause enlarged mediastinal lymphadenopathy were excluded. Demographics, clinical characteristics, vital and laboratory findings, and outcome were obtained from electronic medical records. Computed tomography scans were evaluated by two blinded radiologists. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to determine independent predictive factors of 30-day mortality.ResultsPatients with enlarged mediastinal lymphadenopathy (n = 60, 9.2%) were older and more likely to have at least one comorbidity than patients without enlarged mediastinal lymphadenopathy (p = 0.03, p = 0.003). There were more deaths in patients with enlarged mediastinal lymphadenopathy than in those without (11/60 vs 45/590, p = 0.01). Older age (OR:3.74, 95% CI: 2.06–6.79; p < 0.001), presence of consolidation pattern (OR:1.93, 95% CI: 1.09–3.40; p = 0.02) and enlarged mediastinal lymphadenopathy (OR:2.38, 95% CI:1.13–4.98; p = 0.02) were independently associated with 30-day mortality.ConclusionIn this large group of hospitalized patients with COVID-19, we found that in addition to older age and consolidation pattern on CT scan, enlarged mediastinal lymphadenopathy were independently associated with increased mortality. Mediastinal evaluation should be performed in all patients with COVID-19.     

Value of CT-Guided Percutaneous Irreversible Electroporation Added to FOLFIRINOX Chemotherapy in Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: A Post Hoc Comparison

PurposeTo compare survival after CT-guided percutaneous irreversible electroporation (IRE) and folinic acid, fluorouracil, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) chemotherapy versus FOLFIRINOX only in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC).Materials and MethodsA post hoc comparison was performed of data derived from a prospective IRE-FOLFIRINOX cohort and a retrospective FOLFIRINOX-only cohort. All patients received a minimum of 3 cycles of FOLFIRINOX for LAPC and were considered eligible for CT-guided percutaneous IRE. Endpoints included overall survival (OS), local and distant progression-free survival, and time to progression (TTP) and were compared using stratified Kaplan-Meier analysis. Patients who received > 8 cycles of FOLFIRINOX before IRE and who had tumors > 6 cm in the FOLFIRINOX-only group were excluded.ResultsOf 103 patients with a diagnosis of LAPC, 52 were deemed eligible (n = 30 IRE-FOLFIRINOX and n = 22 FOLFIRINOX-only). Patients in the FOLFIRINOX-only arm had larger tumors (53 mm ± 19 vs 38 mm ± 7, P = .340), had more locoregional lymph node metastases (23% vs 7%, P = .622), and more often received radiotherapy (7 patients vs 2 patients, P = .027); all other baseline characteristics were comparable. Median OS was 17.0 months (range, 5–35 mo; SD = 6) for IRE-FOLFIRINOX versus 12.4 months (range, 3–22 mo; SD = 6) for FOLFIRINOX-only (P = .038). After sensitivity analyses, median OS was 17.2 months (range, 6–27 mo; SD = 6) versus 12.4 months (range, 7–32 mo; SD = 10) (P = .05). Median TTP was longer in the IRE-FOLFIRINOX group: 14.2 months (range, 5–25 mo; SD = 4) versus 5.2 months (range, 2–22; SD = 6) (P = .0001).ConclusionsIn patients with LAPC after FOLFIRINOX chemotherapy, CT-guided percutaneous IRE may improve OS and TTP. This study may facilitate the design of randomized controlled trials to compare survival after IRE-FOLRINOX versus FOLFIRINOX-only.     

The global impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on clinical radiography practice: A systematic literature review and recommendations for future services planning

IntroductionWorldwide, reports and experiences indicate that there has been extensive re-organisation within diagnostic imaging and radiotherapy departments in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. This was necessary due to changes in workload and working practice guidelines that have evolved during the pandemic. This review provides a comprehensive summary of the global impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on radiography practice, service delivery and workforce wellbeing.MethodsA systematic review methodology was adopted to obtain data from primary studies of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods designs from databases (PubMed, Science Direct, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature [CINAHL], and SCOPUS: all 2020 to present). The included articles were subjected to information extraction and results-based convergent synthesis.ResultsThe electronic database search yielded 10,420 articles after removal of duplicates. Of these, 31 articles met the final inclusion criteria with some (n = 8) fully focussed on radiotherapy workforce and service delivery. The pandemic impact on radiography practice is broadly themed around: training, communication, and information dissemination; infrastructure, technology, and clinical workflow; and workforce mental health and well-being.ConclusionGlobally, most radiographers received inadequate training for managing COVID-19 patients during the initial acute phase of the pandemic. Additionally, there were significant changes to clinical practice, working patterns and perceived increase in workload due to surges in COVID-19 patients and the consequent strict adherence to new infection protocols. These changes, coupled with fear emanating from the increased risk of the workforce to contracting the infection, contributed to anxiety and workplace-related stress during the pandemic.Implications for practiceLocal pandemic response strategies must be appropriately developed from standard protocols in readiness for safe clinical practice and well-being management training of practitioners.     

Impact of COVID-19 social distancing regulations on outpatient diagnostic imaging volumes and no-show rates

BackgroundThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has significantly impacted outpatient radiology practices, necessitating change in practice infrastructure and workflow.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to assess the consequences of social distancing regulations on 1) outpatient imaging volume and 2) no-show rates per imaging modality.MethodsVolume and no-show rates of a large, multicenter metropolitan healthcare system outpatient practice were retrospectively stratified by modality including radiography, CT, MRI, ultrasonography, PET, DEXA, and mammography from January 2 to July 21, 2020. Trends were assessed relative to timepoints of significant state and local social distancing regulatory changes.ResultsThe decline in imaging volume and rise in no-show rates was first noted on March 10, 2020 following the declaration of a state of emergency in New York State (NYS). Total outpatient imaging volume declined 85% from baseline over the following 5 days. Decreases varied by modality: 88% for radiography, 75% for CT, 73% for MR, 61% for PET, 80% for ultrasonography, 90% for DEXA, and 85% for mammography. Imaging volume and no-show rate recovery preceded the mask mandate of April 15, 2020, and further trended along with New York City's reopening phases. No-show rates recovered within 2 months of the height of the pandemic, however, outpatient imaging volume has yet to recover to baseline after 3 months.ConclusionThe total outpatient imaging volume declined alongside an increase in the no-show rate following the declaration of a state of emergency in NYS. No-show rates recovered within 2 months of the height of the pandemic with imaging volume yet to recover after 3 months.Clinical impactUnderstanding the impact of social distancing regulations on outpatient imaging volume and no-show rates can potentially aid other outpatient radiology practices and healthcare systems in anticipating upcoming changes as the COVID-19 pandemic evolves.