The effect of palatability of oral contrast media on compliance with drinking protocols, and on bowel opacification, in abdominal CT

Morgan, Bruno; Basu, Avi; Kithoray, Surjinder; Tyagi, Raman; Campbell, Shona; Liddicoat, A.

doi:10.1016/j.radi.2008.09.001

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is in line with prior studies which show similar findings of improved palatability of Telebrix compared with barium suspension. 34 Woolen et al 35 showed in an n = 218 patient survey study, that if oral contrast material has any diagnostic benefit, most outpatients (89%) would rather drink it than accept any risk for missing an important finding. 35 Further studies are needed to assess patient preference balanced with risk estimates of missed diagnosis.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Optimizing Outpatient Oral Contrast Use in Abdominal CT–A Radiology Pandemic Response Initiative to Reduce Patient Time in the Waiting Room and Reduce Costs, While Improving Patient Experience

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: The aim was to reduce outpatient wait time and improve patient experience by optimising oral contrast use . Methods: Our multidisciplinary stakeholder collaboration implemented two simultaneous interventions: (1) Creation of ‘oral contrast policy’, limiting recommended indications. (2) Creation of a new shorter oral contrast regime (30 vs 60 min). We conducted a retrospective service evaluation of oral contrast use in outpatient (OP) abdominal CT at baseline and post-intervention. Patient wait times were measured and per-patient cost-savings were reported. An image quality review was performed by 2 blinded abdominal radiologists. Patient experience was evaluated with a standard voluntary survey. Statistical analysis was performed comparing baseline and evaluation outcomes using Chi-square or Fisher Exact test for categorical variables and Student’s t-test or ANOVA for continuous data. Results: Over 1-month periods, OP CT scans were assessed in baseline (pre-pandemic) n = 575, baseline (pandemic) n = 495 and post-intervention n = 545 groups. Oral contrast use reduced from 420/575, 73.0% at baseline to 178/545, 32.7% post intervention. The turn-around time reduced by 15.8 minutes per patient from 70.3 to 54.5 minutes, P < .001 (Interventions 1 and 2). The diagnostic quality did not differ between the oral contrast regimes (Intervention 2, P = 1.0, P = .08). No repeat CTs were needed due to lack of oral contrast (Intervention 1) or poor opacification (Intervention 2). There was oral contrast cost reductions of 69.1–78.4% ( P < .001). Patients reported their overall experience was improved post-intervention (Interventions 1 and 2). Conclusions: Optimising the CT oral contrast service through judicious use and a shorter regime, reduced patient wait times, improved patient experience and preserved diagnostic quality. Summary statement Optimising the CT oral contrast service through judicious use and a shorter regime, reduced patient wait-times, improved patient experience and preserved diagnostic quality.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%