Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic Shifts Inpatient Imaging Utilization

ObjectiveThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had a significant impact on imaging utilization across practice settings. The purpose of this study was to quantify the change in the composition of inpatient imaging volumes for modality types and Current Procedural Terminology–coded groups during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsA retrospective study of inpatient imaging volumes in a large health care system was performed, analyzing weekly imaging volumes by modality types (radiography, 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. Further subanalyses compared early post-COVID-19 (weeks 10-13) and late post-COVID-19 (weeks 14-16) periods. Statistical comparisons were performed using χ² and independent-samples t tests.ResultsCompared with 2019, total inpatient imaging volume in 2020 post-COVID-19, early and late post-COVID-19 periods, declined by 13.6% (from 78,902 to 68,168), 16.6% (from 45,221 to 37,732), and 9.6% (from 33,681 to 30,436), respectively. By week 16, inpatient imaging volume rebounded and was only down 4.2% (from 11,003 to 10,546). However, a statistically significant shift (P < .0001) in the 2020 composition mix was observed largely comprised of radiography (74.3%), followed by CT (12.7%), ultrasound (8%), MRI (2.4%), interventional radiology (2.3%), and nuclear medicine (0.4%). Although the vast majority of imaging studies declined, few Current Procedural Terminology–coded groups showed increased trends in imaging volumes in the late post-COVID-19 period, including CT angiography chest, radiography chest, and ultrasound venous duplex.DiscussionDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, we observed a decrease in inpatient imaging volumes accompanied by a shift away from cross-sectional imaging toward radiography. These findings could have significant implications in planning for a potential resurgence.     

Impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) on the Practice of Clinical Radiology

The speed at which coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) spread quickly fractured the radiology practice model in ways that were never considered. In March 2020, most practices saw an unprecedented drop in their volume of greater than 50%. The profound changes that have interrupted the arc of the radiology narrative may substantially dictate how health care and radiology services are delivered in the future. We examine the impact of COVID-19 on the future of radiology practice across the following domains: employment, compensation, and practice structure; location and hours of work; workplace environment and safety; activities beyond the “usual scope” of radiology practice; and CME, national meetings, and professional organizations. Our purpose is to share ideas that can help inform adaptive planning.     

Rescheduling Nonurgent Care in Radiology: Implementation During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic

ObjectiveTo meet hospital preparedness for the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and ACR recommended delay of all nonemergent tests and elective procedures. The purpose of this article is to report our experience for rescheduling nonemergent imaging and procedures during the pandemic at our tertiary academic institution.MethodsWe rescheduled the nonemergent imaging and procedures in our hospitals and outpatient centers from March 16 to May 4, 2020. We created a tiered priority system to reschedule patients for whom imaging could be delayed with minimal clinical impact. The radiologists performed detailed chart reviews for decision making. We conducted daily virtual huddles with discussion of rescheduling strategies and issue tracking.ResultsUsing a snapshot during the rescheduling period, there was a 53.4% decrease in imaging volume during the period of March 16 to April 15, 2020, compared with the same time period in 2019. The total number of imaging studies decreased from 38,369 in 2019 to 17,891 in 2020 during this period. Although we saw the largest reduction in outpatient imaging (72.3%), there was also a significant decrease in inpatient (40.5%) and emergency department (48.9%) imaging volumes.DiscussionThe use of multiple communication channels was critical in relaying the information to all our stakeholders, patients, referring physicians, and the radiology workforce. Teamwork, quick adoption, and adaptation of changing strategies was important given the fluidity of the situation.     

Variables Influencing Radiology Volume Recovery During the Next Phase of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has reduced radiology volumes across the country as providers have decreased elective care to minimize the spread of infection and free up health care delivery system capacity. After the stay-at-home order was issued in our county, imaging volumes at our institution decreased to approximately 46% of baseline volumes, similar to the experience of other radiology practices. Given the substantial differences in severity and timing of the disease in different geographic regions, estimating resumption of radiology volumes will be one of the next major challenges for radiology practices. We hypothesize that there are six major variables that will likely predict radiology volumes: (1) severity of disease in the local region, including potential subsequent “waves” of infection; (2) lifting of government social distancing restrictions; (3) patient concern regarding risk of leaving home and entering imaging facilities; (4) management of pent-up demand for imaging delayed during the acute phase of the pandemic, including institutional capacity; (5) impact of the economic downturn on health insurance and ability to pay for imaging; and (6) radiology practice profile reflecting amount of elective imaging performed, including type of patients seen by the radiology practice such as emergency, inpatient, outpatient mix and subspecialty types. We encourage radiology practice leaders to use these and other relevant variables to plan for the coming weeks and to work collaboratively with local health system and governmental leaders to help ensure that needed patient care is restored as quickly as the environment will safely permit.     

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.     

Burnout and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic: Intersection,Impact, and Interventions

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID 2019) pandemic has presented myriad challenges to an underprepared health care system. Health care providers are facing unprecedented acute workplace stress compounded by a high baseline rate of physician burnout. This article discusses the relationship between acute stress disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, and burnout through a literature review focusing on the mental health impact on health care providers after prior epidemics and natural disasters. We offer both a framework for understanding the mental health impact of the COVID-19 epidemic on physicians while proposing a systems based model to respond to these challenges.     

Early-Stage Radiology Volume Effects and Considerations with the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic: Adaptations,Risks, and Lessons Learned

ObjectiveThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic resulted in significant loss of radiologic volume as a result of shelter-at-home mandates and delay of non-time-sensitive imaging studies to preserve capacity for the pandemic. We analyze the volume-related impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on six academic medical systems (AMSs), three in high COVID-19 surge (high-surge) and three in low COVID-19 surge (low-surge) regions, and a large national private practice coalition. We sought to assess adaptations, risks of actions, and lessons learned.MethodsPercent change of 2020 volume per week was compared with the corresponding 2019 volume calculated for each of the 14 imaging modalities and overall total, outpatient, emergency, and inpatient studies in high-surge AMSs and low-surge AMSs and the practice coalition.ResultsSteep examination volume drops occurred during week 11, with slow recovery starting week 17. The lowest total AMS volume drop was 40% compared with the same period the previous year, and the largest was 70%. The greatest decreases were seen with screening mammography and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scans, and the smallest decreases were seen with PET/CT, x-ray, and interventional radiology. Inpatient volume was least impacted compared with outpatient or emergency imaging.ConclusionLarge percentage drops in volume were seen from weeks 11 through 17, were seen with screening studies, and were larger for the high-surge AMSs than for the low-surge AMSs. The lowest drops in volume were seen with modalities in which delays in imaging had greater perceived adverse consequences.     

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.     

The Early Influence and Effects of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic on Resident Education and Adaptations

The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has had a major impact on the education of trainees in the radiology environment. The precipitous drop in patient volumes and sequestering of faculty and trainees to maintain social distancing affects experiential learning. The shift of nearly all teaching settings to a virtual environment has been challenging but may also allow more interaction during teaching sessions than traditional readout sessions or didactic lectures. Faculty development is key in ensuring competence and confidence in this new environment. Recruitment of trainees using a virtual platform will require communication of opportunities as well as the culture of the department and institution as well as the community. Delay of the board examinations has caused angst as well as disruption of the timing of clinical rotations but may ultimately result in a shift of how the examinations are administered. The exceptional disruption of the COVID-19 pandemic allows us to reconsider how the educational aspects of imaging can emerge as improved in the years to come.     

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) CT Findings: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

PurposeTo date, considerable knowledge gaps remain regarding the chest CT imaging features of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of results from published studies to date to provide a summary of evidence on detection of COVID-19 by chest CT and the expected CT imaging manifestations.MethodsStudies were identified by searching PubMed database for articles published between December 2019 and February 2020. Pooled CT positive rate of COVID-19 and pooled incidence of CT imaging findings were estimated using a random-effect model.ResultsA total of 13 studies met inclusion criteria. The pooled positive rate of the CT imaging was 89.76% and 90.35% when only including thin-section chest CT. Typical CT signs were ground glass opacities (83.31%), ground glass opacities with mixed consolidation (58.42%), adjacent pleura thickening (52.46%), interlobular septal thickening (48.46%), and air bronchograms (46.46%). Other CT signs included crazy paving pattern (14.81%), pleural effusion (5.88%), bronchiectasis (5.42%), pericardial effusion (4.55%), and lymphadenopathy (3.38%). The most anatomic distributions were bilateral lung infection (78.2%) and peripheral distribution (76.95%). The incidences were highest in the right lower lobe (87.21%), left lower lobe (81.41%), and bilateral lower lobes (65.22%). The right upper lobe (65.22%), right middle lobe (54.95%), and left upper lobe (69.43%) were also commonly involved. The incidence of bilateral upper lobes was 60.87%. A considerable proportion of patients had three or more lobes involved (70.81%).ConclusionsThe detection of COVID-19 chest CT imaging is very high among symptomatic individuals at high risk, especially using thin-section chest CT. The most common CT features in patients affected by COVID-19 included ground glass opacities and consolidation involving the bilateral lungs in a peripheral distribution.     

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.     

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Breast Imaging: An Analysis of the National Mammography Database

PurposeThe aim of this study was to quantify the initial decline and subsequent rebound in breast cancer screening metrics throughout the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.MethodsScreening and diagnostic mammographic examinations, biopsies performed, and cancer diagnoses were extracted from the ACR National Mammography Database from March 1, 2019, through May 31, 2021. Patient (race and age) and facility (regional location, community type, and facility type) demographics were collected. Three time periods were used for analysis: pre-COVID-19 (March 1, 2019, to May 31, 2019), peak COVID-19 (March 1, 2020, to May 31, 2020), and COVID-19 recovery (March 1, 2021, to May 31, 2021). Analysis was performed at the facility level and overall between time periods.ResultsIn total, 5,633,783 screening mammographic studies, 1,282,374 diagnostic mammographic studies, 231,390 biopsies, and 69,657 cancer diagnoses were analyzed. All peak COVID-19 metrics were less than pre-COVID-19 volumes: 36.3% of pre-COVID-19 for screening mammography, 57.9% for diagnostic mammography, 47.3% for biopsies, and 48.7% for cancer diagnoses. There was some rebound during COVID-19 recovery as a percentage of pre-COVID-19 volumes: 85.3% of pre-COVID-19 for screening mammography, 97.8% for diagnostic mammography, 91.5% for biopsies, and 92.0% for cancer diagnoses. Across various metrics, there was a disproportionate negative impact on older women, Asian women, facilities in the Northeast, and facilities affiliated with academic medical centers.ConclusionsCOVID-19 had the greatest impact on screening mammography volumes, which have not returned to pre-COVID-19 levels. Cancer diagnoses declined significantly in the acute phase and have not fully rebounded, emphasizing the need to increase outreach efforts directed at specific patient population and facility types.     

Initial Impact of COVID-19 on Radiology Practices: An ACR/RBMA Survey

PurposeThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic affected radiology practices in many ways. The aim of this survey was to estimate declines in imaging volumes and financial impact across different practice settings during April 2020.MethodsThe survey, comprising 48 questions, was conducted among members of the ACR and the Radiology Business Management Association during May 2020. Survey questions focused on practice demographics, volumes, financials, personnel and staff adjustments, and anticipation of recovery.ResultsDuring April 2020, nearly all radiology practices reported substantial (56.4%-63.7%) declines in imaging volumes, with outpatient imaging volumes most severely affected. Mean gross charges declined by 50.1% to 54.8% and collections declined by 46.4% to 53.9%. Percentage reductions did not correlate with practice size. The majority of respondents believed that volumes would recover but not entirely (62%-88%) and anticipated a short-term recovery, with a surge likely in the short term due to postponement of elective imaging (52%-64%). About 16% of respondents reported that radiologists in their practices tested positive for COVID-19. More than half (52.3%) reported that availability of personal protective equipment had become an issue or was inadequate. A majority (62.3%) reported that their practices had existing remote reading or teleradiology capabilities in place before the pandemic, and 22.3% developed such capabilities in response to the pandemic.ConclusionsRadiology practices across different settings experienced substantial declines in imaging volumes and collections during the initial wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in April 2020. Most are actively engaged in both short- and long-term operational adjustments.     

Operational Strategies to Prevent Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Spread in Radiology: Experience From a Singapore Radiology Department After Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome

As coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection spreads globally, the demand for chest imaging will inevitably rise with an accompanying increase in risk of disease transmission to frontline radiology staff. Radiology departments should implement strict infection control measures and robust operational plans to minimize disease transmission and mitigate potential impact of possible staff infection. In this article, the authors share several operational guidelines and strategies implemented in our practice to reduce spread of COVID-19 and maintain clinical and educational needs of a teaching hospital.