Utilizing Process Improvement Methodology to Improve Inpatient Access to MRI

Modern acceleration in musculoskeletal MRI: applications, implications, and challenges

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is crucial for accurately diagnosing a wide spectrum of musculoskeletal conditions due to its superior soft tissue contrast resolution. However, the long acquisition times of traditional two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) fast and turbo spin-echo (TSE) pulse sequences can limit patient access and comfort. Recent technical advancements have introduced acceleration techniques that significantly reduce MRI times for musculoskeletal examinations. Key acceleration methods include parallel imaging (PI), simultaneous multi-slice acquisition (SMS), and compressed sensing (CS), enabling up to eightfold faster scans while maintaining image quality, resolution, and safety standards. These innovations now allow for 3- to 6-fold accelerated clinical musculoskeletal MRI exams, reducing scan times to 4 to 6 min for joints and spine imaging. Evolving deep learning-based image reconstruction promises even faster scans without compromising quality. Current research indicates that combining acceleration techniques, deep learning image reconstruction, and superresolution algorithms will eventually facilitate tenfold accelerated musculoskeletal MRI in routine clinical practice. Such rapid MRI protocols can drastically reduce scan times by 80-90% compared to conventional methods. Implementing these rapid imaging protocols does impact workflow, indirect costs, and workload for MRI technologists and radiologists, which requires careful management. However, the shift from conventional to accelerated, deep learning-based MRI enhances the value of musculoskeletal MRI by improving patient access and comfort and promoting sustainable imaging practices. This article offers a comprehensive overview of the technical aspects, benefits, and challenges of modern accelerated musculoskeletal MRI, guiding radiologists and researchers in this evolving field.

Reducing Delays in MRIs Under Sedation and General Anesthesia Using Quality Improvement Tools

OBJECTIVE

Develop structured, quality improvement interventions to achieve a 15%-point reduction in MRIs performed under sedation or general anesthesia (GA) delayed more than 15 min within a 6-month period.

METHODS

A prospective audit of MRIs under sedation or GA from January 2022 to June 2023 was conducted. A multidisciplinary team performed process mapping and root cause analysis for delays. Interventions were developed and implemented over four Plan, Do, Study, Act (PDSA) cycles, targeting workflow standardization, preadmission patient counseling, reinforcing adherence to scheduled scan times and written consent respectively. Delay times (compared with Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn's tests), delays more than 15 min and delays of 60 min or more at baseline and after each PDSA cycle were recorded.

RESULTS

In all, 627 MRIs under sedation or GA were analyzed, comprising 443 at baseline and 184 postimplementation. Of the 627, 556 (88.7%) scans were performed under sedation, 22 (3.5%) under monitored anesthesia care, and 49 (7.8%) under GA. At baseline, 71.6% (317 of 443) scans were delayed over 15 min and 28.2% (125 of 443) scans by 60 min or more, with a median delay of 30 min. Postimplementation, there was a 34.7%-point reduction in scans delayed more than 15 min, a 17.5%-point reduction in scans delayed by 60 min or more, and a reduction in median delay time by 15 min (P < .001).

DISCUSSION

Structured interventions significantly reduced delays in MRIs under sedation and GA, potentially improving outcomes for both patients and providers. Key factors included a diversity of perspectives in the study team, continued stakeholder engagement and structured quality improvement tools including PDSA cycles.

Clinical Evaluation of a 2-Minute Ultrafast Brain MR Protocol for Evaluation of Acute Pathology in the Emergency and Inpatient Settings

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The use of MR imaging in emergency settings has been limited by availability, long scan times, and sensitivity to motion. This study assessed the diagnostic performance of an ultrafast brain MR imaging protocol for evaluation of acute intracranial pathology in the emergency department and inpatient settings.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sixty-six adult patients who underwent brain MR imaging in the emergency department and inpatient settings were included in the study. All patients underwent both the reference and the ultrafast brain MR protocols. Both brain MR imaging protocols consisted of T1-weighted, T2/T2*-weighted, FLAIR, and DWI sequences. The ultrafast MR images were reconstructed by using a machine-learning assisted framework. All images were reviewed by 2 blinded neuroradiologists.

RESULTS

The average acquisition time was 2.1 minutes for the ultrafast brain MR protocol and 10 minutes for the reference brain MR protocol. There was 98.5% agreement on the main clinical diagnosis between the 2 protocols. In head-to-head comparison, the reference protocol was preferred in terms of image noise and geometric distortion (P < .05 for both). The ultrafast ms-EPI protocol was preferred over the reference protocol in terms of reduced motion artifacts (P < .01). Overall diagnostic quality was not significantly different between the 2 protocols (P > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

The ultrafast brain MR imaging protocol provides high accuracy for evaluating acute pathology while only requiring a fraction of the scan time. Although there was greater image noise and geometric distortion on the ultrafast brain MR protocol images, there was significant reduction in motion artifacts with similar overall diagnostic quality between the 2 protocols.

MRI and the Critical Care Patient: Clinical, Operational, and Financial Challenges

Neuroimaging in conjunction with a neurologic examination has become a valuable resource for today's intensive care unit (ICU) physicians. Imaging provides critical information during the assessment and ongoing neuromonitoring of patients for toxic-metabolic or structural injury of the brain. A patient's condition can change rapidly, and interventions may require imaging. When making this determination, the benefit must be weighed against possible risks associated with intrahospital transport. The patient's condition is assessed to decide if they are stable enough to leave the ICU for an extended period. Intrahospital transport risks include adverse events related to the physical nature of the transport, the change in the environment, or relocating equipment used to monitor the patient. Adverse events can be categorized as minor (e.g., clinical decompensation) or major (e.g., requiring immediate intervention) and may occur in preparation or during transport. Regardless of the type of event experienced, any intervention during transport impacts the patient and may lead to delayed treatment and disruption of critical care. This review summarizes the commentary on the current literature on the associated risks and provides insight into the costs as well as provider experiences. Approximately, one-third of patients who are transported from the ICU to an imaging suite may experience an adverse event. This creates an additional risk for extending a patient's stay in the ICU. The delay in obtaining imaging can negatively impact the patient's treatment plan and affect long-term outcomes as increased disability or mortality. Disruption of ICU therapy can decrease respiratory function after the patient returns from transport. Because of the complex care team needed for patient transport, the staff time alone can cost $200 or more. New technologies and advancements are needed to reduce patient risk and improve safety.

Point-of-Care Brain MRI: Preliminary Results from a Single-Center Retrospective Study

Background Point-of-care (POC) MRI is a bedside imaging technology with fewer than five units in clinical use in the United States and a paucity of scientific studies on clinical applications. Purpose To evaluate the clinical and operational impacts of deploying POC MRI in emergency department (ED) and intensive care unit (ICU) patient settings for bedside neuroimaging, including the turnaround time. Materials and Methods In this preliminary retrospective study, all patients in the ED and ICU at a single academic medical center who underwent noncontrast brain MRI from January 2021 to June 2021 were investigated to determine the number of patients who underwent bedside POC MRI. Turnaround time, examination limitations, relevant findings, and potential CT and fixed MRI findings were recorded for patients who underwent POC MRI. Descriptive statistics were used to describe clinical variables. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the turnaround time between POC MRI and fixed MRI examinations. Results Of 638 noncontrast brain MRI examinations, 36 POC MRI examinations were performed in 35 patients (median age, 66 years [IQR, 57-77 years]; 21 women), with one patient undergoing two POC MRI examinations. Of the 36 POC MRI examinations, 13 (36%) occurred in the ED and 23 (64%) in the ICU. There were 12 of 36 (33%) POC MRI examinations interpreted as negative, 14 of 36 (39%) with clinically significant imaging findings, and 10 of 36 (28%) deemed nondiagnostic for reasons such as patient motion. Of 23 diagnostic POC MRI examinations with comparison CT available, three (13%) demonstrated acute infarctions not apparent on CT scans. Of seven diagnostic POC MRI examinations with subsequent fixed MRI examinations, two (29%) demonstrated missed versus interval subcentimeter infarctions, while the remaining demonstrated no change. The median turnaround time of POC MRI was 3.4 hours in the ED and 5.3 hours in the ICU. Conclusion Point-of-care (POC) MRI was performed rapidly in the emergency department and intensive care unit. A few POC MRI examinations demonstrated acute infarctions not apparent at standard-of-care CT examinations. © RSNA, 2022 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Anzai and Moy in this issue.

Emerging Techniques and Future Directions: Fast and Portable Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Fast MRI and portable MRI are emerging as promising technologies to improve the speed, efficiency, and availability of MR imaging. Fast MRI methods are increasingly being adopted to create screening protocols for the diagnosis and management of acute pathology in the emergency department. Faster imaging can facilitate timely diagnosis, reduce motion artifacts, and improve departmental MR operations. Point-of-care and portable MRI are emerging technologies that require radiologists to reenvision the role of MRI as a tool with greater accessibility, fewer siting constraints, and the ability to provide valuable diagnostic information at the bedside. Recently introduced commercially available pulse sequences and new MRI scanners are bringing these technologies closer to the patient's clinical setting, and we expect their use to only increase over the coming decade. This article provides an overview of these emerging technologies for emergency radiologists.

MRI at the Bedside: A Case Report Comparing Fixed and Portable Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Suspected Stroke

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) provides high-contrast resolution and is the preferred diagnostic tool for neurological disease. However, long exam times discourage MRI in emergency settings, and high-field MRI scanners (1.5-3T) require dedicated imaging suites. New, portable low-field-strength MRI machines (0.064T) have lower resolution than fixed MRI, but do not require restrictive environments or intrahospital transport. We present a case of a 78-year-old male with altered mental status who underwent 0.064T portable MRI and fixed 3T MRI exams in the emergency department. Imaging showed no evidence of acute infarction or intracranial lesions. The 0.064T images were of poor quality relative to 3T sequences, but the results of the portable MRI agreed with the conventional 3T MRI and a computed tomography scan from the same day. The compatible imaging results suggest that portable, low-field MRI can aid in neurological diagnosis without transporting patients to the MRI suite. Further studies should expand this comparison between high- and low-field MRI to better characterize the role and clinical applications of point-of-care MRI.