Patient and Provider Feedback for Radiology Reports: Implementation of a Quality Improvement Project in a Multi-Institutional Setting

BackgroundRadiology does not routinely solicit feedback on radiology reports. The aim of the study is to report the feasibility and initial results of a multi-institutional quality improvement project implementing patient and provider feedback for radiology reports.MethodsA HIPAA-compliant, institutional review board–waived quality improvement effort at two institutions obtaining patient and provider feedback for radiology reports was implemented from January 2018 to May 2020.InterventionA two-question survey (quantitative review and open text box feedback) was embedded into the electronic health records for patients and providers. Text-based feedback was evaluated, and patterns of feedback were categorized: thoroughness of reports, error in reports, timeliness of reports, access to reports, desire for patient summary, and desire for key images. We performed the χ² test for categorical variables. P < .05 was considered significant.ResultsOf 367 responses, patients provided 219 of 367 (60%), and providers provided 148 of 367 (40%) of the feedback. A higher proportion of patients reported satisfaction with reports (76% versus 65%, P = .023) and provided more feedback compared with providers (71% versus 50%, P < .0001). Both patients and providers commented on the thoroughness of reports (12% of patients versus 9% of providers) and errors in reports (8% of patients and 9% of providers). Patients disproportionately commented on timeliness of reports (11%) and access to the reports (6%) compared with providers (3% each). In addition, 7% of patients expressed a desire for patient summaries.ConclusionReport-specific patient and provider feedback demonstrate the feasibility of embedding surveys into electronic medical records. Up to 9% of the feedback addressed an error in reports.     

Facilitating Surveillance of Incidental Findings Using a Novel Reporting Template: Proof of Concept in Patients With Pancreatic Abnormalities

ObjectiveTo determine the surveillance impact of utilizing a discrete field in structured radiology reports in patients with incidental pancreatic findings.MethodsWe implemented a dictation template containing a discrete structured field element to auto-trigger listing of patients with incidental pancreatic findings on a pancreas clinic registry in the electronic health record. We isolated CT and MRI reports with incidental pancreatic findings over a 24-month period. We stratified patients by presence or absence of the discrete field element in reports (flagged versus unflagged) and evaluated the impact of report flagging on likelihood of clinic follow-up, follow-up imaging, endoscopic ultrasound, surgical intervention, genetics referral, obtaining pathologic diagnosis, and time interval between index imaging to various outcomes.ResultsPatients with flagged reports were more likely to be seen or discussed in a pancreas clinic compared with those with unflagged reports (189 of 376, 50.3% versus 79 of 474, 16.7%; P <. 001). Patients with flagged reports were more likely to get follow-up imaging than patients with unflagged reports (188 of 376, 50.0% versus 121 of 474, 25.5%; P < .001) and were more likely to undergo appropriate management of actionable findings compared with patients in the unflagged group (23 of 62, 37.1% versus 28 of 129, 21.7%; P = .036).DiscussionImplementation of a structured discrete field element for reporting of patients with incidental pancreatic findings had positive impact on surveillance measures and can be applied in other organ systems with established surveillance guidelines to standardize patient care.     

Traumatic lumbar spine fractures: Transverse process fractures dominate

PurposeWith motor vehicle collisions (MVC) predominating as a source of trauma now, we sought to 1) reassess the types of traumatic lumbar spine fractures, 2) highlight the coincidence of transverse process fractures (TPF) with visceral injuries and 3) emphasize the difference in management between compression fracture (CF) and TPF.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed the reports of lumbar spine and abdominopelvic CT scans from 2017 and 2018 to classify the types of spine fractures, their mechanism of injury, treatment and coexistence of abdominopelvic injuries.Results2.2% of patients had posttraumatic lumbar spine fractures (113/5229), including 58 patients (51.3%) with isolated TPF and 42 (37.2%) with isolated CF; 13 patients had mixed types. TPF accounted for 70% of all fractures (195/277) as opposed to 24% for CF (67/277). MVC was responsible for 60.3% (35/58) of TPF but falls accounted for 73.8% (31/42) of CF. The odds ratio of having isolated TPF from MVC was 4.1[1.8–9.0] versus CF after a fall from standing was 4.5[2.0–10.5]. Of patients with both visceral injuries and lumbar spine fractures, 75% (27/36) had isolated TPF (odds ratio of visceral injury with TPF was 4.4[1.8–10.7]). No TPF were treated with an intervention, however 77% (40/52) of CF were addressed surgically or with braces.ConclusionTPF are the most common lumbar spine fractures and are often associated with MVC. There is a high association between TPF and abdominopelvic visceral injury requiring radiologists' attentiveness even though the TPF is not directly addressed.     

Does Direct Radiologist-Patient Verbal Communication Affect Follow-Up Compliance of Probably Benign Assessments?

PurposeThe aim of this study was to determine whether direct verbal communication of results by a radiologist affected follow-up compliance rates for probably benign breast imaging findings.MethodsThis study was institutional review board approved and HIPAA compliant. A retrospective search identified all patients from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2010 who had breast findings newly assessed as probably benign (BI-RADS category 3). Patients were categorized by whether the radiologist or the technologist verbally communicated the result and follow-up recommendation. Patient adherence to 6-, 12-, and 24-month follow-up imaging recommendations was recorded.ResultsCompliance data were available for 770 of 819 patients in the study. Overall compliance was 83.0% (639 of 770) for 6-month examinations, 68.1% (524 of 770) for 6- and 12-month examinations, and 57.4% (442 of 770) for 6-, 12-, and 24-month examinations. For patients who initially underwent diagnostic mammography alone, there was no significant difference in compliance between those who had and those who did not have radiologist-patient communication (6 months, 81.9% vs 80.8% [P = .83]; 6 and 12 months, 70.8% vs 67.3% [P = .58]; 6, 12, and 24 months, 54.2% vs 58.4% [P = .53]). For patients who initially underwent diagnostic mammography alone versus ultrasound with or without diagnostic mammography, there was no significant difference in compliance (6 months, 81.1% vs 84.3% [P = .24]; 6 and 12 months, 68.1% vs 68.0% [P = .96]; 6, 12, and 24 months, 57.4% vs 57.4% [P = .00]).ConclusionsHigh initial compliance was achieved by radiologist or technologist verbal communication of findings and recommendations. Direct communication by the radiologist did not increase compliance compared with communication by a technologist.     

Gait characteristics and functional outcomes during early follow-up are comparable in patients with calcaneal fractures treated by either the sinus tarsi or the extended lateral approach

BackgroundTo overcome the substantial functional loss after calcaneal fractures (CF), surgical treatment currently consists of two strategies, namely the commonly used extended lateral approach (ELA) and the less invasive sinus tarsi approach (STA). Despite the comparable anatomical restoration, the biomechanical and functional outcome of these strategies during early rehabilitation has not yet been investigated.Research questionTo evaluate changes in gait characteristics and functional development in patients with CF treated by either STA or ELA.MethodsA total of 56 patients with unilateral CF were included in this retrospective study. 26 patients were treated by ELA while 30 patients underwent surgery through the STA. Functional and biomechanical measurements were performed at follow-up periods of three and six months. Foot and ankle kinetics and kinematics were extracted using instrumented gait analysis with a multi segment foot model. Physical and mental components of the Short Form 36 (SF-36) and total scoring of the AOFAS hindfoot scale were used for functional evaluation. Statistical analysis was performed using Mann Whitney and Student’s t-test. Effect sizes of group differences were calculated using Cohen’s d.ResultsComparisons between ELA and STA showed no significant difference regarding the biomechanical and functional outcome. Within-group comparisons showed significant (p < 0.05) improvements from three to six month follow-up. Ankle joint and hindfoot kinematics showed increased mobility during walking of up to 34% and 26%, respectively. Maximum ankle joint moment also improved by up to 34% while vertical ground reaction force increased by 8%. Functional outcome only revealed significant changes in the physical component of SF-36.SignificanceELA and STA treatments revealed comparable functional improvements in patients with unilateral intraarticular calcaneal fractures during early rehabilitation. The less invasive STA provides adequate restoration of dynamic foot function and could serve as a viable alternative to the commonly used ELA.     

Low Back Pain in the Emergency Department—Are the ACR Appropriateness Criteria Being Followed?

PurposeTo assess the prevalence of appropriate imaging among emergency department (ED) patients with low back pain.MethodsOur level-1 ED records were retrospectively searched for patients with a chief compliant of “low back pain” from January to April 2013. Of 624 patients, 100 were randomly selected and analyzed for their demographics, presentation, imaging, treatment, and outcomes. The study indication for imaging was compared with the ACR Appropriateness Criteria, and the indication was deemed appropriate if it received a rating of ≥5.ResultsThe mean age of the study population was 48 years (50% women, 50% men). The majority presented with acute or acute on chronic low back pain (94 patients), and half had a precipitating event (50 patients). A total of 28 (28%) patients underwent imaging in the ED; 24 (24%) had outpatient imaging; 54 (54%) had neither ED nor outpatient imaging. In all, 96% (27 of 28) of patients imaged in the ED, and 96% (23 of 24) imaged as outpatients, were appropriately imaged. Of patients who did not undergo imaging, 96% (52 of 54) were appropriately not imaged. A total of 76 patients (76%) had follow-up after discharge: of these, 42 (55%) had resolution or return of pain to baseline with conservative management; 18 (24%) had improvement with intervention (epidural steroid injection or kyphoplasty); 8 (10%) improved with surgery; and 8 had persistent pain (11%).ConclusionsThe majority of patients presenting to the ED with low back pain did not undergo imaging. The vast majority of those who underwent imaging were appropriately imaged, based on the ACR Appropriateness Criteria.     

Development and Implementation of a Multisite Registry Using Structured Templates for Actionable Findings in the Kidney

PurposeThe aim of this study was to scale structured report templates categorizing actionable renal findings across health systems and create a centralized registry of patient and report data.MethodsIn January 2017, three academic radiology departments agreed to prospectively include identical structured templates categorizing the malignant likelihood of renal findings in ≥90% of all adult ultrasound, MRI, and CT reports, a new approach for two sites. Between November 20, 2017, and September 30, 2019, deidentified HL7 report data were transmitted to a centralized ACR registry. An automated algorithm extracted categories. Radiologists were requested to addend reports with missing or incomplete templates after the first month. Separately, each site submitted patient sociodemographic and clinical data 12 months before and at least 3 months after enrollment.ResultsA total of 164,982 eligible radiology reports were transmitted to the registry; 4,159 (2.5%) were excluded because of missing categories or radiologist names. The final cohort included 160,823 examinations on 102,619 unique patients. Mean template use before and after addendum requests was 99.3% and 99.9% at SITE1, 86.5% and 94.6% at SITE2, and 91.4% and 96.0% at SITE3. Matching patient sociodemographic and clinical data were obtained on 96.9% of reports from SITE1, 94.2% from SITE2, and 96.0% from SITE3. Regulatory, cultural, and technology barriers to the creation of a multisite registry were identified.ConclusionsBarriers to the adoption of unified structured report templates for actionable kidney findings can be addressed. Deidentified report and patient data can be securely transmitted to an external registry. These data can facilitate the collection of diverse evidence-based population imaging outcomes.     

Radiology Order Decision Support: Examination-Indication Appropriateness Assessed Using 2 Electronic Systems

PurposeThe goal of the study was to determine the effects of guideline implementation strategy using 2 commercial radiology clinical decision support (CDS) systems.MethodsThe appropriateness and insurance dispositions of MRI and CT orders were evaluated using the Medicalis SmartReq and Nuance RadPort CDS systems during 2 different 3-month periods. Logistic regression was used to compare these outcomes between the 2 systems, after adjusting for patient-mix differences.ResultsApproximately 2,000 consecutive outpatient MRI and CT orders were evaluated over 2 periods of 3 months each. Medicalis scored 60% of exams as “indeterminate” (insufficient information) or “not validated” (no guidelines). Excluding these cases, Nuance scored significantly more exams as appropriate than did Medicalis (80% versus 51%, P < .001) and predicted insurance outcome significantly more often (76% versus 58%, P < .001). Only when the Medicalis “indeterminate” and “not validated” categories were combined with the high- or moderate-utility categories did the 2 CDS systems have similar performance. Overall, 19% of examinations with low-utility ratings were reimbursed. Conversely, 0.8% of examinations with high- or moderate-utility ratings were denied reimbursement.ConclusionsThe chief difference between the 2 CDS systems, and the strongest influence on outcomes, was how exams without relevant guidelines or with insufficient information were handled. Nuance augmented published guidelines with clinical best practice; Medicalis requested additional information utilizing pop-up windows. Thus, guideline implementation choices contributed to decision making and outcomes. User interface, specifically, the number of screens and completeness of indication choices, controlled CDS interactions and, coupled with guidance implementation, influenced willingness to use the CDS system.     

Early Results from a United States Trial of Prostatic Artery Embolization in the Treatment of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia

PurposeTo report early findings from a prospective United States clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of prostatic artery embolization (PAE) for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).Materials and MethodsFrom January 2012 to March 2013, 72 patients were screened and 20 patients underwent treatment. Patients were evaluated at baseline and selected intervals (1, 3, and 6 mo) for the following efficacy variables: American Urological Association (AUA) symptom score, quality of life (QOL)–related symptoms, International Index of Erectile Function score, peak urine flow rate, and prostate volume (on magnetic resonance imaging at 6 mo). Complications were monitored and reported per Society of Interventional Radiology guidelines.ResultsEmbolization was technically successful in 18 of 20 patients (90%); bilateral PAE was successful in 18 of 19 (95%). Unsuccessful embolizations were secondary to atherosclerotic occlusion of prostatic arteries. Clinical success was seen in 95% of patients (19 of 20) at 1 month, with average AUA symptom score improvements of 10.8 points at 1 month (P < .0001), 12.1 points at 3 months (P = .0003), and 9.8 points at 6 months (P = .06). QOL improved at 1 month (1.9 points; P = .0002), 3 months (1.9 points; P = .003), and 6 months (2.6 points; P = .007). Sexual function improved by 34% at 1 month (P = .11), 5% at 3 months (P = .72), and 16% at 6 months (P = .19). Prostate volume at 6 months had decreased 18% (n = 5; P = .05). No minor or major complications were reported.ConclusionsEarly results from this clinical trial indicate that PAE offers a safe and efficacious treatment option for men with BPH.     

Transfer Patient Imaging: Assessment of the Impact of Discrepancies Identified by Emergency Radiologists

PurposeAdvanced imaging examinations of emergently transferred patients (ETPs) are overread to various degrees by receiving institutions. The practical clinical impact of these second opinions has not been studied in the past. The purpose of this study is to determine if emergency radiology overreads change emergency medicine decision making on ETPs in the emergency department (ED).MethodsAll CT and MRI examinations on patients transferred to a level I trauma center during calendar year 2018 were routinely overread by emergency radiologists and discrepancies with the outside report electronically flagged. All discrepant reports compared with the outside interpretations were reviewed by one of four emergency medicine physicians. Comparing the original and final reports, reviewers identified changes in patient management that could be attributed to the additional information contained in the final report. Changes in patient care were categorized as affecting ED management, disposition, follow-up, or consulting services.ResultsOver a 12-month period, 5,834 patients were accepted in transfer. Among 5,631 CT or MRI examinations with outside reports available, 669 examinations (12%) had at least one discrepancy in the corresponding outside report. In 219 examinations (33%), ED management was changed by discrepancies noted on the final report; patient disposition was affected in 84 (13%), outpatient follow-up in 54 (8%), and selection of consulting services in 411 (61%), and ED stay was extended in 544 (81%). Discrepant findings affected decision making in 613 of 669 of examinations (92%).ConclusionEmergency radiology overreading of transferred patients’ advanced imaging examinations provided actionable additional information to emergency medicine physicians in the care of 613 of 669 (92%) examinations with discrepant findings. This added value is worth the effort to design workflows to routinely overread CT and MRI examinations of ETPs.     

Improved Utilization Following Conversion of a Fluoroscopy Suite to Hybrid CT/Angiography System

PurposeTo assess changes in operational utilization following conversion of a single IR suite to a hybrid CT/angiography (Angio-CT) system at an academic tertiary care center.Materials and MethodsThe total number of interventional procedures and diagnostic CT examinations performed in 29 rooms (20 diagnostic radiology, 7 IR, 2 shared between divisions) was calculated in the 24 months before conversion of an IR suite to Angio-CT and 12 months after conversion. The total number of IR procedures (global IR/month) and diagnostic CT scans per month (global CT/month) in both before and after conversion periods was calculated and defined as baseline institutional growth. This was compared against the change in the number of IR procedures performed in the before and after periods in the converted room (Angio-CT/month) as well as the number of diagnostic CT scans performed in the shared rooms (shared CT/month).ResultsThe percent change in global CT and global IR from the before to the after periods was 39.2% and 3.1%, respectively. Shared CT per month and Angio-CT per month increased by 46.7% and 12.0% across the same time periods, respectively. The ratio of the percent increase in Angio-CT per month to percent increase in global IR per month was 3.87. The ratio of the percent increase in shared CT per month to percent increase in global CT per month was 1.19.ConclusionsOperational utilization improved in both diagnostic radiology and IR sections following conversion of a conventional fluoroscopic IR suite to an Angio-CT room.     

Critical Findings: Timing of Notification in Neuroradiology

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:Timely reporting of critical findings in radiology has been identified by The Joint Commission as one of the National Patient Safety Goals. Our aim was to determine the magnitude of delays between identifying a neuroradiologic critical finding and verbally notifying the caregiver in an effort to improve clinical outcomes.MATERIALS AND METHODS:We surveyed the time of critical finding discovery, attempted notification, and direct communication between neuroradiologists and caregivers for weekday, evening, overnight, and weekend shifts during an 8-week period. The data were collected by trained observers and/or trainees and included 13 neuroradiology attendings plus fellows and residents. Critical findings were based on a previously approved 17-item list. Summary and comparative t test statistics were calculated, and sources of delays were identified.RESULTS:Ninety-one critical findings were recorded. The mean time from study acquisition to critical finding discovery was 62.2 minutes, from critical finding discovery to call made 3.7 minutes, and from call made to direct communication, 5.2 minutes. The overall time from critical finding discovery to caregiver notification was within 10 minutes in 72.5% (66/91) and 15 minutes in 93.4% (85/91) of cases. There were no significant differences across shifts except for daytime versus overnight and weekend shifts, when means were 2.4, 5.6, and 8.7 minutes, respectively (P < .01). If >1 physician was called, the mean notification time increased from 3.5 to 10.1 minutes (P < .01). Sources of delays included inaccurate contact information, physician unavailability (shift change/office closed), patient transfer to a different service, or lack of responsiveness from caregivers.CONCLUSIONS:Direct communication with the responsible referring physician occurred consistently within 10–15 minutes after observation of a critical finding. These delays are less than the average interval from study acquisition to critical finding discovery (mean, 62.2 minutes).

The eradication of preventable medical errors is of paramount importance in the field of health care. In July 2011, The Joint Commission (TJC) released a National Patient Safety Goal that mandated that healthcare providers “report critical results of tests and diagnostic procedures on a timely basis.”¹ There have subsequently been protocols created to reach this goal, including those for the following: 1) defining a critical finding (CF), 2) communicating the critical finding to the physician, and 3) indicating what makes a report “timely.”^2–6TJC has never defined a CF, stating only “each organization can define for itself the circumstances under which a test result is considered ‘critical.’”¹ The American College of Radiology identifies findings that require nonroutine communication as those “that suggest a need for immediate or urgent intervention.”² Likewise, TJC has never defined what “timely” means. Once again it has suggested that institutions define for themselves what is timely for a given laboratory or imaging finding. However TJC demands that institutions monitor compliance with the communication of CFs (Appendix).At our institution, we have created, in neuroradiology, a list of critical findings that neuroradiology, neurosurgery, neurology, and otorhinolaryngology departments have agreed is acceptable to all services. It has been reviewed at 5-year intervals. As to CF notification times, the only mandate has come from our Brain Attack team for being a Stroke Center of Excellence, which requires 20 minute Team turnaround times for reports after scans. There have been no guidelines set for other CFs.Recent studies involving the determination and communication of critical findings in neuroradiology have analyzed such compliance with the National Patient Safety Goals of the TJC by conducting surveys of academic radiology departments for the presence of a critical finding list and the method of disseminating and implementing the information.^3,7 Another publication studied the existing list of critical findings in neuroradiology and revised that list to include frequent findings that were not previously identified in an effort to be more inclusive of lesions that warrant immediate communication.⁴ Others have suggested that careful review of performance on an ongoing basis with regard to communication of radiologic critical findings can result in significant improvement in adherence to institutional guidelines.⁵Because TJC has been ambiguous about what constitutes appropriate timing for communicating CFs in radiology and no one has established baseline data with which to assess interval improvements, we sought to address this knowledge gap. The purpose of this study was to assess the extent of delays occurring between identification of a critical finding and communication to the referring physician. We focused only on this communication process (rather than delays from study ordered to study completion) to address TJC concerns about physician-physician communication delays. A broad interpretation of the mandate of TJC might suggest that radiologists must record when they see a CF, when they attempt to notify a caregiver, and when they actually communicate with the caregiver about that CF, as part of the monitoring function for critical results. For that reason, we investigated each of these intervals to assess their magnitude. We hypothesized that the time between the discovery of a critical finding and the attempt to contact the referring physician would be short and consistent across all timeframes of daily practice. However, the time between attempted notification of the referring physician and communication with the clinician would vary widely depending on the time of day the CF was discovered, the service being notified, and weekday or weekend shift. We also sought to determine the nature of such communication delays. This is the first step in improving patient care. By identifying sources of delays, addressing the sources of these delays, remediating them, and then reassessing notification times after corrections are made, we believe that patient care can be enhanced. Patients with critical health care needs can be treated earlier; hopefully, this change will positively impact outcomes.     

Multicenter Randomized Sham Controlled Study of Genicular Artery Embolization for Knee Pain Secondary to Osteoarthritis

PurposeTo assess the safety and efficacy of genicular artery embolization (GAE) compared with a sham procedure in the treatment of knee pain secondary to mild to moderate osteoarthritis (OA).Materials and MethodsA multicenter, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial was conducted to evaluate knee OA symptom reduction after GAE versus sham procedure. Subjects (n = 21) with mild to moderate OA and intractable knee pain were randomized 2:1 to either GAE or a sham procedure. Subjects who were randomized to the sham procedure and did not report clinical improvement in both the total Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and visual analog scale (VAS) scores were unblinded and able to crossover to treatment at 1 month. Longitudinal data were collected for 12 months, and subjects were excluded if they required additional analgesics at follow-up. Reductions in the VAS and total WOMAC scores were compared using mixed-effects linear regression models.ResultsAll subjects in the sham group failed to show significant improvements at 1 month and crossed over to the treatment arm. There was a statistically significantly greater pain reduction in the treatment group than in the sham group at 1 month (VAS, 50.1 mm; standard error [SE], 10.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 29.0, 72.3; P<.01). Disability improvement was also significantly greater in the treatment group (WOMAC, 24.7 points; SE, 10.4; 95% CI, 3.5, 45.9; P=.02). Only minor adverse events were reported. Five subjects were excluded after increased analgesic use. Sensitivity analysis with all excluded patients confirmed significant improvements at 1 and 12 months.ConclusionIn patients with mild to moderate knee OA, GAE results in symptomatic improvement greater than the sham procedure with clinically significant reduction in pain and disability.     

Changes in choroidal thickness in myopic children with 0.01% atropine: Evidence from a 12-month follow-up

PurposeTo investigate the changes of low-dose atropine (0.01%) on the choroidal thickness (ChT) of young children with low myopia.MethodsA total of 25 eyes of 25 low myopic children were included. All subjects were prescribed 0.01% atropine eye drops to be applied once per night before bedtime in involving eyes. The ChT and ocular biometry parameters were measured before and after 1 month, 3 months, 6 months and 12 months. The children were followed up for 12 months.ResultsAt 3 months, the ChT under the fovea significantly increased (309.96±70.82 μm) in comparison with the baseline (297.92±66.31 μm, P<0.0001) and was continuous thickening till 12 months after treatments with 0.01% atropine. Similarly, the changes of ChT under the fovea significantly increased from baseline to 3 months in comparison with the baseline to 1 month after treatments (P<0.0001). There was a significant relationship between changes in subfoveal ChT and central cornea thickness (CCT, beta=−1.76, 95% confidence intervals: −3.49 to −0.04, P = 0.045).ConclusionsUsing low dose atropine eye drops significantly increased subfoveal ChT after 3 months in eyes of myopic children. In addition, the changes in subfoveal ChT may be associated with the changes of CCT.     

Impact of a Commercially Available Clinical Decision Support Program on Provider Ordering Habits

PurposeClinical decision support (CDS) software designed around the ACR Appropriateness Criteria assists health care providers in choosing appropriate imaging studies at the time of order entry. The goal of this study was to determine the impact of commercially available CDS on the ordering habits of inpatient and emergency providers.MethodsIn 2014, ACR Select was integrated into our electronic health record, though without displaying appropriateness scores in a “silent” mode for 6 months. Then, feedback regarding examination appropriateness was “turned on” at order entry for adult patients in the emergency and inpatient settings for 24 months. We retrospectively compared the appropriateness scores of imaging tests before and after displaying feedback at order entry and evaluated these data by modality and attending versus trainee status.ResultsThe commercially available CDS-generated scores for 34% and 20.4% of pre- and postintervention studies, respectively. After feedback, the relative frequency of low utility studies decreased to 5.4% from 11%, and the relative frequency of indicated studies increased to 82% from 64.5%. This was most pronounced in trainees for whom the percentage of low utility studies decreased from 10.8% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 10.0%, 11.7%) to 4.8% (95% CI: 4.4%, 5.2%) and the percentage of indicated studies increased from 65.6% (95% CI: 64.3%, 66.9%) to 83.7% (83.0%, 84.3%).ConclusionsAfter implementation of a commercially available decision support tool integrated into the electronic health record, there was a significant improvement in imaging study appropriateness scores, more pronounced in studies ordered by trainees.     

Breast MRI BI-RADS 3: Impact of Patient-Level Factors on Compliance With Short-Term Follow-Up

PurposeA BI-RADS 3 assessment on breast MRI is given when a finding is estimated to have less than 2% chance of breast cancer. Patients in this category are typically recommended to return for a 6-month follow-up MRI. Compliance with this recommendation is low, and we aim to understand which factors are associated with compliance.Materials and MethodsAll patients with an MRI examination given a BI-RADS category 3 between February 1, 2011, and June 30, 2016, were retrospectively reviewed. Patient demographics and breast-related medical history were extracted from the electronic medical record. Patients presenting for follow-up MRI between 3 and 10 months were considered compliant. Univariate and multivariate analysis was performed to identify which patient-level factors were associated with compliance with follow-up MRI.ResultsOverall, 190 women with a BI-RADS 3 assessment on MRI were included in the study. Of these women, 106 were compliant with the recommended follow-up MRI (57.3%), 34 had delayed follow-up (18.4%), and 45 were noncompliant (24.3%). Reason for examination, personal history of breast cancer, and family history of breast cancer were significantly associated with compliance.ConclusionsWe found that 75.7% of patients had a follow-up MRI after a BI-RADS 3 assessment, but only 57.3% were timely in their follow-up. Our data suggest that there may be subsets of patients who would benefit from additional support and resources to help increase overall compliance and timely compliance.     

Radiologist Compliance With Institutional Guidelines for Use of Nonroutine Communication of Diagnostic Imaging Results

PurposeThe aim of this study was to evaluate radiologist compliance with institutional guidelines for nonroutine communication of diagnostic imaging results.MethodsFrom July 2012 through September 2013, 7,401 completed advanced imaging cases were retrospectively reviewed by groups of 3 or more radiologists. The reviewing radiologists were asked to reach consensus on two questions related to nonroutine communication: (1) “Does the report describe a finding which requires nonroutine communication to the patient’s physicians?” and if so, (2) “Were the department’s guidelines for nonroutine communication followed?” Consensus judgments were aggregated and analyzed on the basis of subspecialty, level of acuity per the guidelines, and type of communication used.ResultsOf the 7,401 studies reviewed, 960 (13.0%) were deemed to require nonroutine results communication. The need for nonroutine communication was most frequent with CT (16.6%), followed by MRI (11.1%) and ultrasound (3.4%). For the divisions studied, nonroutine communication was most frequently needed in thoracic (37.9%), followed by neurologic (17.3%), emergency (15.8%), cardiac (13.7%), musculoskeletal (4.4%), and abdominal (0.7%) imaging. Of the cases requiring nonroutine communication, 39 (4%) yielded consensus that the guidelines were not appropriately followed: 21% (n = 8) involved level 1 findings (critical), 41% (n = 16) involved level 2 findings (acute), and 38% (n = 15) involved level 3 findings (nonacute). Failures of communication involving level 1 findings primarily involved neurologic imaging, including 4 cases of new cerebral infarct and 3 cases of new intracranial hemorrhage.ConclusionsEstablished guidelines for nonroutine communication are appropriately applied and durable, underscoring the high yield of formalizing and implementing these guidelines across practice settings.