Thy P Nguyen, Deepa Dongarwar, Rajesh K Gupta, Suur Biliciler, Kazim A Sheikh
{"title":"A National Cross-Sectional Survey of EMG Physician Volume.","authors":"Thy P Nguyen, Deepa Dongarwar, Rajesh K Gupta, Suur Biliciler, Kazim A Sheikh","doi":"10.1212/CPJ.0000000000200333","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>This study presents results from a survey of physicians performing electrodiagnostic studies to assess average volume. We also assessed how different factors (trainees, technologists, age of the physician, and case complexity) affected volume. Productivity is an important factor for physicians across practice settings. However, unlike evaluation and management services for neurologists, there are no published data for benchmarks of average volume of electrodiagnostic studies.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A 34-question survey was designed collecting information on demographics, electrodiagnostic study volume, technologists, trainees, referrals, and case complexity. The anonymous survey was disseminated through a QR code or hyperlink to multiple online neurology, physical medicine and rehabilitation, electromyography, and neuromuscular forums. The primary outcome was EMG volume including number of EMGs per half-day and EMG volume per year. We conducted bivariate association analysis between primary outcomes and respondent characteristics using the Pearson χ<sup>2</sup> test. Multivariable regression models determined factors associated with each of our outcome variables.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 201 respondents initiated the survey. 71% were certified in adult neurology, 19.6% in physical medicine and rehabilitation, and 2.7% in pediatric neurology. 37.5% practiced in academic medicine. The remaining respondents were from private practice, group, solo, hospital employed, or other. 83% of respondents allotted a dedicated half-day to performing EMGs. The median number of EMGs scheduled during a half-day was within 3-4 (45%). 30% and 7% scheduled 5-6 or more than 7 patients per half-day, respectively. The median number of EMGs performed per year was within 251-500 (37%).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>This national, cross-sectional survey evaluates average metrics of EMG volume. Our survey showed that the median number of EMGs annually lies between 251 and 500 studies (37%). In addition, for those respondents who allotted a dedicated half-day to performing EMGs, the median number of EMG studies scheduled per half-day lies between 3 and 4 studies (45%). In multivariate analysis, respondent characteristics of age of the physician (older than 45), working with nerve conduction technologists, and holding the position of EMG director were associated with increased EMG volume.</p>","PeriodicalId":19136,"journal":{"name":"Neurology. Clinical practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11194787/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurology. Clinical practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1212/CPJ.0000000000200333","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background and objectives: This study presents results from a survey of physicians performing electrodiagnostic studies to assess average volume. We also assessed how different factors (trainees, technologists, age of the physician, and case complexity) affected volume. Productivity is an important factor for physicians across practice settings. However, unlike evaluation and management services for neurologists, there are no published data for benchmarks of average volume of electrodiagnostic studies.
Methods: A 34-question survey was designed collecting information on demographics, electrodiagnostic study volume, technologists, trainees, referrals, and case complexity. The anonymous survey was disseminated through a QR code or hyperlink to multiple online neurology, physical medicine and rehabilitation, electromyography, and neuromuscular forums. The primary outcome was EMG volume including number of EMGs per half-day and EMG volume per year. We conducted bivariate association analysis between primary outcomes and respondent characteristics using the Pearson χ2 test. Multivariable regression models determined factors associated with each of our outcome variables.
Results: A total of 201 respondents initiated the survey. 71% were certified in adult neurology, 19.6% in physical medicine and rehabilitation, and 2.7% in pediatric neurology. 37.5% practiced in academic medicine. The remaining respondents were from private practice, group, solo, hospital employed, or other. 83% of respondents allotted a dedicated half-day to performing EMGs. The median number of EMGs scheduled during a half-day was within 3-4 (45%). 30% and 7% scheduled 5-6 or more than 7 patients per half-day, respectively. The median number of EMGs performed per year was within 251-500 (37%).
Discussion: This national, cross-sectional survey evaluates average metrics of EMG volume. Our survey showed that the median number of EMGs annually lies between 251 and 500 studies (37%). In addition, for those respondents who allotted a dedicated half-day to performing EMGs, the median number of EMG studies scheduled per half-day lies between 3 and 4 studies (45%). In multivariate analysis, respondent characteristics of age of the physician (older than 45), working with nerve conduction technologists, and holding the position of EMG director were associated with increased EMG volume.
期刊介绍:
Neurology® Genetics is an online open access journal publishing peer-reviewed reports in the field of neurogenetics. The journal publishes original articles in all areas of neurogenetics including rare and common genetic variations, genotype-phenotype correlations, outlier phenotypes as a result of mutations in known disease genes, and genetic variations with a putative link to diseases. Articles include studies reporting on genetic disease risk, pharmacogenomics, and results of gene-based clinical trials (viral, ASO, etc.). Genetically engineered model systems are not a primary focus of Neurology® Genetics, but studies using model systems for treatment trials, including well-powered studies reporting negative results, are welcome.