Waiting times for inpatient CT after the introduction of a five-level priority system: a retrospective quality-control study in a Swiss tertiary-care centre
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.59667/sjoranm.v35i3.14Keywords:
computed tomography, inpatient, triage, quality control, prioritisation, waiting timeAbstract
Objectives: Inpatient computed tomography (CT) is frequently scheduled on a first-come, first-served basis with fixed slots and remains under-studied relative to emergency and outpatient imaging. We described waiting times for inpatient CT after the introduction of a five-level priority system (P1–P5), with the institutional historical dashboard value reported separately for context.
Methods: Single-centre, retrospective quality-control study with a contextual historical comparison in the inpatient CT pathway of a Swiss tertiary-care hospital. A five-level priority system (P1, immediate, to P5, not urgent) was introduced on 1 May 2025. The post-implementation period (1 May to 31 July 2025) was compared with the same calendar window in 2024 as the historical reference. Waiting time was measured as the difference between the request date and the examination date, at calendar-day resolution. The historical dashboard value was reported separately because its measurement definition and inclusion criteria differed from those of the study cohort; placing each priority stratum against it required calibration and was retained only as an exploratory analysis. The ordering of waiting times across strata was assessed by Kruskal–Wallis and Dunn tests, with an urgent (P1–P3) versus non-urgent (P4–P5) contrast. Examinations that were manually accelerated or performed at a fixed time were excluded.
Results: Of 1847 examinations screened, 1341 were analysed. Mean waiting time on the measured calendar-day scale was 0.09 days for P1 (n = 11), 0.19 days for P2 (n = 245), 0.49 days for P3 (n = 852), 1.34 days for P4 (n = 214) and 3.00 days for P5 (n = 19); the proportion examined on the same day decreased from 91% for P1 to 5% for P5. Waiting time differed significantly across strata (Kruskal–Wallis p < 0.001), and the urgent strata (P1–P3) waited less than the non-urgent strata (P4–P5) (0.42 vs 1.47 days, difference 1.05 days, p < 0.001). Mean waiting time increased monotonically from P1 to P5. The institutional dashboard reported 1.28 days for the same months in 2024 and 1.06 days in 2025, on its own metric.
Conclusions: In this single-centre descriptive evaluation, observed calendar-day intervals increased across the final assigned priority categories from P1 to P5, while same-day examination proportions decreased. The findings describe the post-implementation pattern; they do not establish a causal improvement over the previous scheduling system or demonstrate clinical benefit.
References
1. Ritchie B, Summerville L, Sheng M, et al (2026) Impact of turnaround time in radiology: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Current Problems in Diagnostic Radiology 55:268–272. https://doi.org/10.1067/j.cpradiol.2025.04.018 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1067/j.cpradiol.2025.04.018
2. Bredella MA, DeStigter K, Jankharia B, et al (2026) A Strategic Framework to Address Growing Imbalances between Physician Supply and Demand for Radiology: A Review from the International Society for Strategic Studies in Radiology. Radiology 320. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.260425 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.260425
3. Newman-Toker DE, Nassery N, Schaffer AC, et al (2023) Burden of serious harms from diagnostic error in the USA. BMJ Quality & Safety 33:109–120. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2021-014130 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2021-014130
4. Boes S, Napierala C (2021) Assessment of the introduction of DRG-based reimbursement in Switzerland: Evidence on the short-term effects on length of stay compliance in university hospitals. Health Policy 125:739–750. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2021.01.010 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2021.01.010
5. Zabrodina V, Dusheiko M, Moschetti K (2020) A moneymaking scan: Dual reimbursement systems and supplier‐induced demand for diagnostic imaging. Health Economics 29:1566–1585. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.4152 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.4152
6. Silva E, Tang K, Chiacchia S, et al (2026) Simulation of AI-driven CT Queue Prioritization in the Emergency Department. Radiology: Artificial Intelligence 8. https://doi.org/10.1148/ryai.260110 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1148/ryai.260110
7. Ahmad HK, Kitzing YX, Bond V, et al (2026) Artificial Intelligence Triage of Urgent Versus Non‐Urgent CT Brain Findings to Support Expedited Emergency Department Disposition: A Retrospective Validation Study. Emergency Medicine Australasia 38. https://doi.org/10.1111/1742-6723.70353 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1742-6723.70353
8. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, et al (2007) The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies. Annals of Internal Medicine 147:573–577. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-147-8-200710160-00010 DOI: https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-147-8-200710160-00010
9. Virtanen P, Gommers R, Oliphant TE, et al (2020) SciPy 1.0: fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in Python. Nature Methods 17:261–272. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2
10. Terpilowski M (2019) scikit-posthocs: Pairwise multiple comparison tests in Python. Journal of Open Source Software 4:1169. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01169 DOI: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01169
11. Garner J, Krishnan P, Yacoub JH (2026) Enhancing Inpatient MRI Safety and Workflow Using Standardized MRI Care Level Guidelines and Electronic Medical Record-Integrated Dashboard. Academic Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2026.08.111 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2026.08.111
12. Reschke P, Gruenewald LD, Booz C, et al (2026) Radiology appointment management in German hospitals: a survey of referring physicians. Insights into Imaging 17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-026-02303-7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-026-02303-7
13. Bhayana R, Wang CD, Menezes RJ, et al (2020) Optimising after-hours workflow of computed tomography orders in the emergency department. BMJ Open Quality 9:e000969. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2020-000969 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2020-000969
14. Wood EJ, Stabo N, Garrett JW, et al (2023) Factors Contributing to Computed Tomography Trauma Scan Times at a Tertiary Center: Improving Emergency Department Trauma Imaging Workflow Through Targeted Interventions. Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography 47:621–628. https://doi.org/10.1097/rct.0000000000001449 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/RCT.0000000000001449
15. Gupta D, Gupta P, Gupta N, Bhandari A (2026) Optimising radiology workflow in a high-volume academic medical centre: a multi-phase, data-driven quality improvement initiative. Abdominal Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-026-05607-w DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-026-05607-w
16. Maass KL, Halter E, Huschka TR, et al (2021) A discrete event simulation to evaluate impact of radiology process changes on emergency department computed tomography access. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 28:120–128. https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.13606 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.13606
17. Guo H, Jia Y-J, Li H-L, et al (2026) Impact of CT turnaround time on diagnostic and clinical outcomes in acute abdominal pain: A retrospective cohort study. The American Journal of Emergency Medicine 99:9–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2025.09.011 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2025.09.011
18. Jarrett P, Kuriki PE de A, Diercks D, et al (2026) Triage-Time Machine Learning for Computed Tomography Acquisition Prioritization in the Emergency Department. Academic Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2026.08.017 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2026.08.017
19. Saliba T, Rotzinger DC, Fahrni G (2026) Digitally-Augmented Radiology: From tablets to AI, a narrative review of technologies empowering the modern radiologist. F1000Research 15:1081. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.182574.1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.182574.1
20. Momin E, Cook T, Gershon G, et al (2025) Systematic review on the impact of deep learning-driven worklist triage on radiology workflow and clinical outcomes. European Radiology 35:6879–6893. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-025-11674-2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-025-11674-2
21. Sridharan S, Png N, Seah AXH, et al (2026) Impact of AI-Triaged Worklists and AI-Assisted Report Generation on Radiology Turnaround Times: Prospective Real-World Study. Journal of Medical Internet Research 28:e92181. https://doi.org/10.2196/92181 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/92181
22. Bhatia H, Bhatia A, Singh A, et al (2025) Triage and workflow optimization with artificial intelligence in pediatric imaging. Pediatric Radiology 56:1849–1857. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-025-06485-y DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-025-06485-y
23. Jayet A, Fahrni G (2026) A call for clinical evaluation of open-source algorithms in radiology. European Journal of Radiology Artificial Intelligence 5:100068. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrai.2025.100068 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrai.2025.100068
Downloads
Published
Data Availability Statement
The de-identified derived dataset, data dictionary and analysis code supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request, subject to institutional data-protection rules. They are not publicly deposited because the derived data could be re-identifiable in combination with institutional scheduling data, and the raw hospital export cannot be shared.
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Adrien Jayet, David C Rotzinger, Alban Denys, Guillaume Fahrni

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This license requires that reusers give credit to the creator. It allows reusers to distribute, remix, adapt, and build upon the material in any medium or format, even for commercial purposes.