Journals / Sosyoekonomi / 2026 / Cilt: 27 Sayı: 41

The Case of MRI Repetitions with Direct and Indirect Cost Implications: Evidence from Hacettepe University Hospitals

Tekrarlanan MR Görüntülemelerinin Doğrudan ve Dolaylı Maliyet Etkileri: Hacettepe Üniversitesi Hastanelerinden Bulgular

Dilek Başar(HACETTEPE ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-6501-8760
İlhan Can Özen(ORTA DOĞU TEKNİK ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-0524-5536
Selcen Öztürk(HACETTEPE ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-2011-2360
Ekim Gümeler(HACETTEPE ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-2011-2360
Deniz Akata(HACETTEPE ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-1318-0085
Arbay Özden Çiftçi(HACETTEPE ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-9226-764X
Pages
253–262
Publication Date
2019-07-31
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Results indicate that almost 34% of MRI consultations have to be repeated within the same year due to suboptimal quality that hinders correct assessment and diagnosis.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study investigates the case of repeated MRIs using data from Hacettepe University Hospitals.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Results indicate that almost 34% of MRI consultations have to be repeated within the same year due to suboptimal quality that hinders correct assessment and diagnosis.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Results suggest that the probability of repetition is higher among women and children.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Sağlık Politikası · Aşırı MR Kullanımı · Doğrudan ve Dolaylı Maliyetler

Abstract

This study investigates the case of repeated MRIs using data from Hacettepe University Hospitals. Results indicate that almost 34% of MRI consultations have to be repeated within the same year due to suboptimal quality that hinders correct assessment and diagnosis. Suboptimal quality refers to; movement artefacts, use of wrong scan technique or sequence, inexperienced reader and/or shortened time intervals. In fact, almost 30% of those repetitions result in a change in diagnosis. Results suggest that the probability of repetition is higher among women and children.

Özet

Bu çalışma Hacettepe Üniversitesi Hastanelerinden elde edilen veriler aracılığıyla tekrarlanan MR incelemelerini araştırmaktadır. Çalışmadan elde edilen sonuçlar konsülte edilen MR’ların yaklaşık %34’ünün düşük kalite sebebiyle aynı yıl içinde tekrar edildiğini göstermiştir. Düşük kalite; hareket artefaktları, yanlış tarama tekniği veya dizisinin kullanımı, deneyimsiz okuyucu ve / veya kısaltılmış zaman aralıkları olarak tanımlanmaktadır. Söz konusu MR’ların %30’unda ise tanı değişikliği olmuştur. Sonuçlar çocuklar ve kadınlar için tekrar olasılığının daha yüksek olduğuna işaret etmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Başar, D., Özen, İ. C., Öztürk, S., Gümeler, E., Akata, D., Çiftçi, A. Ö. (2019). The Case of MRI Repetitions with Direct and Indirect Cost Implications: Evidence from Hacettepe University Hospitals. Sosyoekonomi, Cilt: 27 Sayı: 41, 253–262. https://doi.org/10.17233/sosyoekonomi.2019.03.13

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (21)

  1. Arıkan, A. & S. Çınarlı & F.Ş. Aykar & A. Sayan (2017), “Attitudes of Medical Malpractice in Pediatric Surgery”, The Journal of Pediatric Research, 4(3), 117.
  2. Armao, D. & R.C. Semelka & J. Elias Jr (2012), “Radiology's ethical responsibility for healthcare reform: tempering the overutilization of medical screening and trimming down a heavyweight”, Journal of magnetic resonance screening, 35(3), 512-517.
  3. Başar, D. & S. Öztürk & İ. Cakmak (2018), “An Application of the Behavioral Model to the Utilization of Health Care Services in Turkey: A Focus on Equity”, Panoeconomicus, Advance online publication, 1-22.
  4. Bilimoria, K.Y. & J.W. Chung & C.A. Minami & M.W. Sohn & E.S. Pavey & J.L. Holl & M.M. Mello (2017), “Relationship between state malpractice environment and quality of health care in the United States”, The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety, 43(5), 241-250.
  5. Cascade, P.N. & E.W. Webster & E.A. Kazerooni (1998), “Ineffective use of radiology: the hidden cost”, AJR. American journal of roentgenology, 170(3), 561-564.
  6. Colla, C.H. & A.J. Mainor & C. Hargreaves & T. Sequist & N. Morden (2017), “Interventions aimed at reducing use of low-value health services: a systematic review”, Medical Care Research and Review, 74(5), 507-550.
  7. Dinan, M.A. & L.H. Curtis & B.G. Hammill & E.F. Patz & A.P. Abernethy & A.M. Shea & K.A. Schulman (2010), “Changes in the use and costs of diagnostic screening among Medicare beneficiaries with cancer, 1999-2006”, Jama, 303(16), 1625-1631.
  8. Eş, H. & Y. Özer & Z. Liman & A. Şanlı (2017), “General surgery malpractice claims in Turkey”, Romanian Journal of Legal Medicine, (2), 272-278.
  9. Hendee, W.R. & G.J. Becker & J.P. Borgstede & J. Bosma & W.J. Casarella & B.A. Erickson & P.E. Wallner (2010), “Addressing overutilization in medical screening”, Radiology, 257(1), 240-245.
  10. Hillman, B.J. & C.A. Joseph & M.R. Mabry & J.H. Sunshine & S.D. Kennedy & M. Noether (1990), “Frequency and costs of diagnostic screening in office practice-a comparison of self-referring and radiologist-referring physicians”, New England Journal of Medicine, 323(23), 1604-1608.
  11. Hosmer, D.W. & S. Lemeshow (2000), Applied Logistic Regression, John Wiley & Sons.
  12. Küçük, M. (2018), “Defensive medicine among obstetricians and gynaecologists in Turkey”, Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 38(2), 200-205.
  13. Lang, K. & H. Huang & D.W. Lee & V. Federico & J. Menzin (2013), “National trends in advanced outpatient diagnostic screening utilization: an analysis of the medical expenditure panel survey, 2000-2009”, BMC Medical Screening, 13(1), 40.
  14. Mafi, J.N. & K. Russell & B.A. Bortz & M. Dachary & W.A. Hazel Jr & A.M. Fendrick (2017), “Low-cost, high-volume health services contribute the most to unnecessary health spending”, Health Affairs, 36(10), 1701-1704.
  15. Mello, M.M. & D.M. Studdert & T.A. Brennan (2003), “The new medical malpractice crisis”, New England Journal of Medicine, 348(23), 2281-2284.
  16. Ozmen, P. & S. Sahin & M. Cetin & Y.Z. Turk (2015), “A Medical Malpractice Research Conducted in Turkey, Causes and the Role of Media”, Journal of Archives in Military Medicine, 3(2).
  17. Sistrom, C. & N.L. McKay & J.B. Weilburg & S.J. Atlas & T.G. Ferris (2012), “Determinants of diagnostic screening utilization in primary care”, The American journal of managed care, 18(4), e135-44.
  18. Smith-Bindman, R. & D.L. Miglioretti & E.B. Larson (2008), “Rising use of diagnostic medical screening in a large integrated health system”, Health Affairs, 27(6), 1491-1502.
  19. Solaroglu, I. & Y. Izci & H.G. Yeter & M.M. Metin & G.E. Keles (2014), “Health transformation project and defensive medicine practice among neurosurgeons in Turkey”, PloS one, 9(10), e111446.
  20. TCSB SAGM (2017), Sağlık İstatistikleri Yıllığı 2016, Ankara.
  21. Tynan, A. & R.A. Berenson & J.B. Christianson (2008), “Health plans target advanced screening services: cost, quality and safety concerns prompt renewed oversight”, Issue Brief (Center for Studying Health System Change), (118), 1-4.