Day of Week, Site of Service, and Patient Complexity Differences in Venous Ultrasound Interpreted by Radiologists Versus Nonradiologists

Comparison of Radiologists and Other Specialists in the Performance of Lumbar Puncture Procedures Over Time

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Lumbar punctures may be performed by many different types of health care providers. We evaluated the percentages of lumbar punctures performed by radiologists-versus-nonradiologist providers, including changes with time and discrepancies between specialties.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Lumbar puncture procedure claims were identified in a 5% sample of Medicare beneficiaries from 2004 to 2017 and classified by provider specialty, site of service, day of week, and patient complexity. Compound annual growth rates for 2004 versus 2017 were calculated; t test and χ² statistical analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Lumbar puncture use increased from 163.3 to 203.4 procedures per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries from 2004 to 2017 (overall rate, 190.3). Concurrently, the percentage of lumbar punctures performed by radiologists increased from 37.1% to 54.0%, while proportions performed by other major physician specialty groups either declined (eg, neurologists from 23.5% to 10.0%) or were largely unchanged. While radiologists saw the largest absolute increase in the percentage of procedures, the largest relative increase occurred for nonphysician providers (4.2% in 2004 to 7.5% in 2017; +78.6%). In 2017, radiologists performed most procedures on weekdays (56.2%) and a plurality on weekends (38.2%). Comorbidity was slightly higher in patients undergoing lumbar puncture by radiologists (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Radiologists now perform most lumbar puncture procedures for Medicare beneficiaries in both the inpatient and outpatient settings. The continuing shift in lumbar puncture responsibility from other specialists to radiologists has implications for clinical workflows, cost, radiation exposure, and postgraduate training.

Disparities over Time in Volume, Day of the Week, and Patient Complexity between Paracentesis and Thoracentesis Procedures Performed by Radiologists versus Those Performed by Nonradiologists

PURPOSE

To compare the disparities between the paracenteses and thoracenteses performed by radiologists with those performed by nonradiologists over time. Variables included the volume of procedures, the days of the week, and the complexity of the patient's condition.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using carrier claims files for a 5% national sample of Medicare beneficiaries from 2004 to 2016, paracentesis and thoracentesis examinations were retrospectively classified by physician specialty (radiologist vs nonradiologist), day of the week (weekday vs weekend), and the complexity of the patient's condition (using Charlson comorbidity index scores). The Pearson chi-square and independent samples t-test were used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Between 2004 and 2016, the proportion of all paracentesis and thoracentesis procedures performed by radiologists increased from 70% to 80% and from 47% to 66%, respectively. Although radiologists increasingly performed more of both services on both weekends and weekdays, the share performed by radiologists was lower on weekends. For most of the first 9 years across the study period, radiologists performed paracentesis in patients with more complex conditions than those treated by nonradiologists, but the complexity of patients' conditions was similar during recent years. For thoracentesis, the complexity of patients' conditions was similar for both specialty groups across the study period.

CONCLUSIONS

The proportion of paracentesis and thoracentesis procedures performed in Medicare beneficiaries by radiologists continues to increase, with radiologists increasingly performing most of both services on weekends. Nonetheless, radiologists perform disproportionately more on weekdays than on weekends. Presently, radiologists and nonradiologists perform paracentesis and thoracentesis procedures in patients with similarly complex conditions. These interspecialty differences in timing and complexity of the patient's condition differ from those recently described for several diagnostic imaging services, reflecting the unique clinical and referral patterns for invasive versus diagnostic imaging services.

Characteristics of MR Neuroimaging Services Billed by Radiologists versus Nonradiologists

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Although most neuroimaging examinations are interpreted by radiologists, many nonradiologists provide interpretation services. We studied day of the week, site of service, and patient complexity differences for common Medicare MR neuroimaging examinations interpreted by radiologists versus nonradiologists.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using carrier claims files for a 5% sample of Medicare beneficiaries from 2012 to 2014, we identified all claims for brain and lumbar spine MR imaging examinations. Services were categorized by physician specialty, day of the week, and the site of service. Patient complexity was calculated using Charlson Comorbidity Indices. The χ² was performed to test statistical significance.

RESULTS

A provider specialty could be identified for 568,423 brain and lumbar spine MR imaging examinations. Of weekday examinations, radiologists interpreted 475,288 (92.3%), and nonradiologists, 39,510 (7.7%). Of weekend examinations, radiologists interpreted 52,028 (97.0%) and nonradiologists 1597 (3.0%). Radiologists interpreted 145,904 (98.7%) examinations in the inpatient hospital and emergency department settings versus 1882 (1.3%) by nonradiologists. Of all examinations, 44,547 of those interpreted by radiologists (8.4%) were on the most clinically complex patients versus 2139 (5.2%) for nonradiologists. All interspecialty differences for day of the week, the site of service, and patient complexity were statistically significant (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Although radiologists interpret most common MR neuroimaging examinations for Medicare beneficiaries, in contrast to nonradiologists, they disproportionately render those services on weekends, in higher acuity sites, and on more complex patients. To optimize access and minimize disparities in necessary neuroimaging, quality metrics should consider such service characteristics.