Effectiveness of Clinical Decision Support in Controlling Inappropriate Imaging

Center for Health Care Solutions, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Journal of the American College of Radiology: JACR 01/2011; 8(1):19-25. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2010.07.009
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Decision support systems for advanced imaging are being implemented with increased frequency and are mandated under some new governmental health care initiatives. However, evidence of effectiveness in reducing inappropriate imaging utilization is limited.
A retrospective cohort study was performed of the staged implementation of evidence-based clinical decision support built into ordering systems for selected high-volume imaging procedures: lumbar MRI, brain MRI, and sinus CT. Brain CT was included as a control. Imaging utilization rates (number of patients imaged as a proportion of patients with selected clinical conditions) and overall imaging utilization before and after the interventions were determined from billing data from a regional health plan and from the institutional radiology information system.
The use of imaging clinical decision support was associated with substantial decreases in the utilization rate of lumbar MRI for low back pain (risk ratio, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.87-0.67; P = .0001), head MRI for headache (risk ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.91-0.64; P = .001), and sinus CT for sinusitis (risk ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.82-0.65; P < .0001). Utilization rates for the head CT control group were not significantly changed. There was a corresponding significant decrease in overall imaging volumes (all diagnoses) for lumbar MRI, head MRI, and sinus CT, with no observed effect for the head CT control group.
Targeted use of imaging clinical decision support is associated with large decreases in the inappropriate utilization of advanced imaging tests.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To examine the effect of integrating point-of-care clinical decision support (CDS) using the ACR Appropriateness Criteria (AC) into an inpatient computerized provider order entry (CPOE) system for advanced imaging requests. Over 12 months, inpatient CPOE requests for nuclear medicine, CT, and MRI were processed by CDS to generate an AC score using provider-selected data from pull-down menus. During the second 6-month period, AC scores were displayed to ordering providers, and acknowledgement was required to finalize a request. Request AC scores and percentages of requests not scored by CDS were compared among primary care providers (PCPs) and specialists, and by years in practice of the responsible physician of record. CDS prospectively generated a score for 26.0% and 30.3% of baseline and intervention requests, respectively. The average AC score increased slightly for all requests (7.2 ± 1.6 versus 7.4 ± 1.5; P < .001), for PCPs (6.9 ± 1.9 versus 7.4 ± 1.6; P < .001), and minimally for specialists (7.3 ± 1.6 versus 7.4 ± 1.5; P < .001). The percentage of requests lacking sufficient structured clinical information to generate an AC score decreased for all requests (73.1% versus 68.9%; P < .001), for PCPs (78.0% versus 71.7%; P < .001), and for specialists (72.9% versus 69.1%; P < .001). Integrating CDS into inpatient CPOE slightly increased the overall AC score of advanced imaging requests as well as the provision of sufficient structured data to automatically generate AC scores. Both effects were more pronounced in PCPs compared with specialists. Copyright © 2015 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
    Journal of the American College of Radiology: JACR 01/2015; DOI:10.1016/j.jacr.2014.11.013
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Rates of imaging for low-back pain are high and are associated with increased health care costs and radiation exposure as well as potentially poorer patient outcomes. We conducted a systematic review to investigate the effectiveness of interventions aimed at reducing the use of imaging for low-back pain. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from the earliest records to June 23, 2014. We included randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials and interrupted time series studies that assessed interventions designed to reduce the use of imaging in any clinical setting, including primary, emergency and specialist care. Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We used raw data on imaging rates to calculate summary statistics. Study heterogeneity prevented meta-analysis. A total of 8500 records were identified through the literature search. Of the 54 potentially eligible studies reviewed in full, 7 were included in our review. Clinical decision support involving a modified referral form in a hospital setting reduced imaging by 36.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 33.2% to 40.5%). Targeted reminders to primary care physicians of appropriate indications for imaging reduced referrals for imaging by 22.5% (95% CI 8.4% to 36.8%). Interventions that used practitioner audits and feedback, practitioner education or guideline dissemination did not significantly reduce imaging rates. Lack of power within some of the included studies resulted in lack of statistical significance despite potentially clinically important effects. Clinical decision support in a hospital setting and targeted reminders to primary care doctors were effective interventions in reducing the use of imaging for low-back pain. These are potentially low-cost interventions that would substantially decrease medical expenditures associated with the management of low-back pain. © 8872147 Canada Inc.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Quality can be seen as the link between what we do as radiologists and patient health. The radiology quality movement represents an opportunity for radiologists to have more direct influence on patient health, including the quality domains of safety, effectiveness, patient centeredness, timeliness, efficiency, and equitability. Focusing on quality allows emergency radiologists to extend outside of the confines of the reading room, thereby enhancing a rewarding and clinically relevant practice.
    Emergency Radiology 02/2015; DOI:10.1007/s10140-015-1298-5


Available from