Contrast-enhanced radiological examinations are an increasingly important diagnostic tool in modern medicine. All approved and available contrast media (iodinated and gadolinium-based) are safe compounds that are well-tolerated by most patients. However, a small percentage of patients exhibit contrast medium-induced adverse drug reactions that are dose-dependent and predictable (type A) or an even smaller cohort experience so-called type B (dose-independent, non-predictable). To increase patients' safety, recommendations/guidelines have been put forth in the literature and advice passed down informally by radiologists in practice to ensure contrast media safety. Through these, both reasonable suggestions as well as misinterpretations and myths (such as the misleading terms "allergy-like" reactions, and "iodine-allergy", the wrong assumption that the initial contact to a contrast medium could not induce an allergy, the estimation that an anti-allergy premedication could suppress all possible adverse reactions, and interleukin-2 as a risk/trigger for contrast medium adverse events) have arisen. Since the latter are not only unhelpful but also potentially reduce patients' safety, such myths and misconceptions are the focus of this review.

ZUSAMMENFASSUNGZiel Ziel dieser Studie war die Überprüfung der Hypothese, dass die ungenaue Diagnose "Jodallergie" für Patienten unter radiologischen Routinebedingungen möglicherweise gefährlich ist. ABSTR ACTPurpose To test the hypothesis that the incomplete diagnosis "iodine allergy" is a possibly dangerous concept for patients under routine radiologic conditions. Materials and Methods 300 patients with a history of an "iodine allergy" were retrospectively screened and compared with two age-, sex-, and procedure-matched groups of patients either diagnosed with a nonspecific "iodine contrast medium (ICM) allergy" or an allergy to a specific ICM agent. For all groups, the clinical symptoms of the This document was downloaded for personal use only. Unauthorized distribution is strictly prohibited. most recent past adverse drug reaction (ADR), prophylactic actions taken for subsequent imaging, and ultimate outcome were recorded and analyzed.Results The diagnosis "iodine allergy" was not otherwise specified in 84.3 % patients. For this group, in most cases, the symptoms of the previous ADRs were not documented. In contrast, the type of ADR was undocumented in only a minority of patients in the comparison groups. In the group of patients with an "iodine allergy" the percentage of unenhanced CT scans was greater than within the other two groups (36.7 % vs. 28.7 %/18.6 %). ADRs following prophylactic measures were only observed in the "iodine allergy" group (OR of 9.24 95 % CI 1. 16 -73.45; p < 0.04).Conclusion This data confirms the hypothesis that the diagnosis "iodine allergy" is potentially dangerous and results in uncertainty in clinical management and sometimes even ineffective prophylactic measures.Key points ▪ The term "iodine allergy" is imprecise, because it designates allergies against different substance classes, such as disinfectants with complexed iodine and contrast media containing covalently bound iodine. ▪ There is a clear correlation between the exactness of the diagnosis -from the alleged "iodine allergy" to "contrast media allergy" to naming the exact culprit CM -and the quality of documentation of the symptoms. ▪ Management of patients diagnosed with "iodine allergy" was associated with uncertainty leading to unenhanced scans and sometimes unnecessary prophylactic actions. ▪ The term "iodine allergy" should be omitted, because it is potentially dangerous and can decrease the quality of radiology exams.

Although the level of digitalization and automation steadily increases in radiology, billing coding for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) exams in the radiology department is still based on manual input from the technologist. After the exam completion, the technologist enters the corresponding exam codes that are associated with billing codes in the radiology information system. Moreover, additional billing codes are added or removed, depending on the performed procedure. This workflow is time-consuming and we showed that billing codes reported by the technologists contain errors. The coding workflow can benefit from an automated system, and thus a prediction model for automated assignment of billing codes for MRI exams based on MRI log data is developed in this work. To the best of our knowledge, it is the first attempt to focus on the prediction of billing codes from modality log data. MRI log data provide a variety of information, including the set of executed MR sequences, MR scanner table movements, and given a contrast medium. MR sequence names are standardized using a heuristic approach and incorporated into the features for the prediction. The prediction model is trained on 9754 MRI exams and tested on 1 month of log data (423 MRI exams) from two MRI scanners of the radiology site for the Swiss medical tariffication system Tarmed. The developed model, an ensemble of classifier chains with multilayer perceptron as a base classifier, predicts medical billing codes for MRI exams with a micro-averaged F1-score of 97.8% (recall 98.1%, precision 97.5%). Manual coding reaches a micro-averaged F1-score of 98.1% (recall 97.4%, precision 98.8%). Thus, the performance of automated coding is close to human performance. Integrated into the clinical environment, this work has the potential to free the technologist from a non-value adding an administrative task, therefore enhance the MRI workflow, and prevent coding errors.

Contrast-enhanced radiological examinations are important diagnostic tools in modern medicine. Currently, all approved and available iodinated and gadolinium-based contrast agents are safe and well-tolerated by most patients. However, approximately 2% of patients receiving iodinated contrast media exhibit hypersensitivity reactions. Patients with a history of such a reaction are at increased risk upon reexposure. Therefore, they are subjected to a prophylaxis such as injection of antiallergy drugs or general anaesthesia. The latter procedure is expensive, can burden the patients organism, and besides lacks objective verification. Therefore, the purpose of our review paper is to present and discuss the background and the previous practice, as well as to provide a proposal for a safe individual patient management.

Diagnostic radiology examinations are generally very efficient processes optimized for high throughput and for serving the needs of physicians. On the downside, streamlined examinations disrupt the personal relationship between diagnosticians and patients. The radiology associations RSNA and ACR consider low visibility of radiologists a threat to the profession. Therefore, they launched counter-acting initiatives that aim at increasing patient satisfaction by providing more personal attention and care, and by raising knowledge about the discipline. However, they did not formulate concrete instructions on how to integrate care by radiologists into the examination process while inhibiting the flow minimally. From an internal patient satisfaction survey, we have seen that patients rated satisfaction with care and attention by physicians relatively low, indicating that patients would welcome a possibility to communicate with radiologists. In a controlled experimental setting, we have then changed our process to include a short medical history interview. Thereby we could corroborate that lack of educated communication is the primary cause of diminished satisfaction and could establish that the duration of the encounter is not critical to achieving improvement. Importantly, the interview also helped to improve the quality of the examination. Thus, short medical history interviews are a very efficient way to increase value by maximizing patient satisfaction and examination quality. Our approach is easy to implement in other radiology clinics that are interested in becoming more patient-centered and in raising patient satisfaction.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract