乳腺诊所工作流程中时间使用效率和操作成本的评估:自动乳腺超声和手持超声的比较分析。

Nilgün Güldoğan, Sıla Ulus, Özge Kovan, Aslıgül Aksan, Kaya Tokmakçıoğlu, Hatice Camgöz Akdağ, Ebru Yılmaz, Ebru Banu Türk, Erkin Arıbal
{"title":"乳腺诊所工作流程中时间使用效率和操作成本的评估:自动乳腺超声和手持超声的比较分析。","authors":"Nilgün Güldoğan,&nbsp;Sıla Ulus,&nbsp;Özge Kovan,&nbsp;Aslıgül Aksan,&nbsp;Kaya Tokmakçıoğlu,&nbsp;Hatice Camgöz Akdağ,&nbsp;Ebru Yılmaz,&nbsp;Ebru Banu Türk,&nbsp;Erkin Arıbal","doi":"10.4274/ejbh.galenos.2023.2023-8-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of this study was to evaluate efficiency of time use for radiologists and operational costs of automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) versus handheld breast ultrasound (HHUS).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board, and informed consent was waived. One hundred and fifty-three patients, aged 21-81 years, underwent both ABUS and HHUS. The time required for the ABUS scanning and radiologist interpretation and the combined scanning and interpretation time for HHUS were recorded for screening and diagnostic exams. One-Way ANOVA test was used to compare the methods, and Cohen Kappa statistics were used to achieve the agreement levels. Finally, the cost of the methods and return of interest were compared by completing a cost analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The overall mean ± standard deviation examination time required for ABUS examination was 676.2±145.42 seconds while mean scan time performed by radiographers was 411.76±67.79 seconds, and the mean radiologist time was 234.01±81.88 seconds. The overall mean examination time required for HHUS was 452.52±171.26 seconds, and the mean scan time and radiologist time were 419.62±143.24 seconds. The reduced time translated into savings of 7.369 TL/month, and savings of 22% in operational costs was achieved with ABUS.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The radiologist's time was reduced with ABUS in both screening and diagnostic scenarios. Although a second-look HHUS is required for diagnostic cases, ABUS still saves radiologists time by enabling a focused approach instead of a complete evaluation of both breasts. Thus, ABUS appears to save both medical staff time and operational costs.</p>","PeriodicalId":93996,"journal":{"name":"European journal of breast health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10546795/pdf/ejbh-19-311.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating Efficiency of Time Use and Operational Costs in a Breast Clinic Workflow: A Comparative Analysis Between Automated Breast Ultrasound and Handheld Ultrasound.\",\"authors\":\"Nilgün Güldoğan,&nbsp;Sıla Ulus,&nbsp;Özge Kovan,&nbsp;Aslıgül Aksan,&nbsp;Kaya Tokmakçıoğlu,&nbsp;Hatice Camgöz Akdağ,&nbsp;Ebru Yılmaz,&nbsp;Ebru Banu Türk,&nbsp;Erkin Arıbal\",\"doi\":\"10.4274/ejbh.galenos.2023.2023-8-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of this study was to evaluate efficiency of time use for radiologists and operational costs of automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) versus handheld breast ultrasound (HHUS).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board, and informed consent was waived. One hundred and fifty-three patients, aged 21-81 years, underwent both ABUS and HHUS. The time required for the ABUS scanning and radiologist interpretation and the combined scanning and interpretation time for HHUS were recorded for screening and diagnostic exams. One-Way ANOVA test was used to compare the methods, and Cohen Kappa statistics were used to achieve the agreement levels. Finally, the cost of the methods and return of interest were compared by completing a cost analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The overall mean ± standard deviation examination time required for ABUS examination was 676.2±145.42 seconds while mean scan time performed by radiographers was 411.76±67.79 seconds, and the mean radiologist time was 234.01±81.88 seconds. The overall mean examination time required for HHUS was 452.52±171.26 seconds, and the mean scan time and radiologist time were 419.62±143.24 seconds. The reduced time translated into savings of 7.369 TL/month, and savings of 22% in operational costs was achieved with ABUS.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The radiologist's time was reduced with ABUS in both screening and diagnostic scenarios. Although a second-look HHUS is required for diagnostic cases, ABUS still saves radiologists time by enabling a focused approach instead of a complete evaluation of both breasts. Thus, ABUS appears to save both medical staff time and operational costs.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":93996,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European journal of breast health\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10546795/pdf/ejbh-19-311.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European journal of breast health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4274/ejbh.galenos.2023.2023-8-4\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European journal of breast health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4274/ejbh.galenos.2023.2023-8-4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究的目的是评估放射科医生的时间使用效率和自动乳腺超声(ABUS)与手持乳腺超声(HHUS)的操作成本。材料和方法:本研究获得了机构审查委员会的批准,并放弃了知情同意。153名患者,年龄21-81岁,同时接受了ABUS和HHUS。记录ABUS扫描和放射科医生解释所需的时间以及HHUS的联合扫描和解释时间,用于筛查和诊断检查。使用单向方差分析检验来比较这些方法,并使用Cohen Kappa统计来实现一致性水平。最后,通过完成成本分析,对两种方法的成本与利息收益进行了比较。结果:ABUS检查所需的总平均±标准差检查时间为676.2±145.42秒,放射技师进行的平均扫描时间为411.76±67.79秒,放射科医生的平均时间为234.01±81.88秒。HHUS所需的总体平均检查时间为452.52±171.26秒,平均扫描时间和放射科医生时间为419.62±143.24秒。减少的时间转化为每月节省7.369 TL,使用ABUS可节省22%的操作成本。结论:在筛查和诊断场景中,使用ABUS可减少放射科医生的时间。尽管诊断病例需要再次检查HHUS,但ABUS仍然可以通过集中方法而不是对两个乳房进行全面评估来节省放射科医生的时间。因此,ABUS似乎既节省了医务人员的时间,又节省了运营成本。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Evaluating Efficiency of Time Use and Operational Costs in a Breast Clinic Workflow: A Comparative Analysis Between Automated Breast Ultrasound and Handheld Ultrasound.

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate efficiency of time use for radiologists and operational costs of automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) versus handheld breast ultrasound (HHUS).

Materials and methods: This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board, and informed consent was waived. One hundred and fifty-three patients, aged 21-81 years, underwent both ABUS and HHUS. The time required for the ABUS scanning and radiologist interpretation and the combined scanning and interpretation time for HHUS were recorded for screening and diagnostic exams. One-Way ANOVA test was used to compare the methods, and Cohen Kappa statistics were used to achieve the agreement levels. Finally, the cost of the methods and return of interest were compared by completing a cost analysis.

Results: The overall mean ± standard deviation examination time required for ABUS examination was 676.2±145.42 seconds while mean scan time performed by radiographers was 411.76±67.79 seconds, and the mean radiologist time was 234.01±81.88 seconds. The overall mean examination time required for HHUS was 452.52±171.26 seconds, and the mean scan time and radiologist time were 419.62±143.24 seconds. The reduced time translated into savings of 7.369 TL/month, and savings of 22% in operational costs was achieved with ABUS.

Conclusion: The radiologist's time was reduced with ABUS in both screening and diagnostic scenarios. Although a second-look HHUS is required for diagnostic cases, ABUS still saves radiologists time by enabling a focused approach instead of a complete evaluation of both breasts. Thus, ABUS appears to save both medical staff time and operational costs.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Evaluation of Breast Health Promotion Intervention Among Catholic Nuns in Lake Zone 'Tanzania. Turmeric Inhibits MDA-MB-231 Cancer Cell Proliferation, Altering miR-638-5p and Its Potential Targets. The Relationship of Pathological Response and Visceral Muscle and Fat Volume in Women With Breast Cancer Who Received Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy. Histopathological Features Predicting Neuroendocrine Morphology in Primary Breast Tumors: A Retrospective Analysis. Radiomics Analysis of Contrast-Enhanced Breast MRI for Optimized Modelling of Virtual Prognostic Biomarkers in Breast Cancer.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1