Article

Appropriate use criteria for stress single-photon emission computed tomography sestamibi studies: a quality improvement project.

Mayo Foundation, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN 55905, USA.
Circulation (Impact Factor: 15.2). 02/2011; 123(5):499-503. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.110.975995
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT We previously reported the application of the 2005 American College of Cardiology Foundation appropriate use criteria for stress single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) imaging to patients at Mayo Clinic (Rochester, MN) in 2005 and 2006. A subsequent internal quality improvement project focused on physician education in an attempt to reduce the rate of inappropriate SPECT studies.
Our 2008 physician education effort, focused on 4 specific indications that accounted for 88% of the inappropriate SPECT studies, included a presentation at medical grand rounds, a publication in the staff newsletter, meetings with physician administrators, and focused presentations to departments/divisions with many ordering physicians. We then remeasured the appropriateness of SPECT studies using previously published methods. The general categories of study indications, eg, after revascularization, were similar in 273 SPECT patients in 2008 and in our 2005 (n=284) and 2006 (n=284) cohorts. There was a trend suggesting a change in the overall classification of appropriateness over time (P=0.08) and a significant change in the rate of inappropriate studies over time (P=0.018). Inappropriate studies decreased from 14.4% in 2005 to 7.0% in 2006 before initiation of the quality improvement project. After completion of the quality improvement project, inappropriate studies increased to 11.7% (P=0.06). The 95% confidence limits for the 4.7% increase in inappropriate studies after the quality improvement project included a decrease of 0.2% and an increase of 9.6%.
This quality improvement project, focused on feedback, physician education, and remeasurement, did not reduce the rate of inappropriate stress SPECT studies in a single academic medical center. Similar limited interventions focused on physician education alone may have limited benefit. More extensive intervention may be necessary to improve the quality of care with appropriateness criteria.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
70 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Inappropriate use of myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) may vary depending on the training, specialty, or practice location of the clinician. We conducted a cross-sectional investigation of consecutive patients who underwent MPI at our Veterans Affairs medical center between December 2010 and July 2011. Characteristics of the MPI ordering clinicians were extracted to investigate any associations with inappropriate use. 582 patients were included, 9.8% were inappropriate. No difference in inappropriate use was observed between cardiology and non-cardiology clinicians (n = 21, 9.5% vs n = 36, 10.0%, P = .83); no difference was noted between nurse practitioners/physician assistants, attending physicians, and housestaff (7.5% vs 11.2% vs 1.8%, P = .06). Comparing inpatient, emergency department and outpatient clinician groups, the difference was null (8.6% vs 6.3% vs 10.1%, P = .75). For most clinician groups, the most common inappropriate indication was an asymptomatic scenario; however, some groups were different: definite acute coronary syndrome for inpatient clinicians and low risk syncope for emergency medicine clinicians. Clinician groups appear to order inappropriate MPI at similar rates, regardless of their training, specialty, or practice location. Differences in the most common type of inappropriate testing suggest that interventions to reduce inappropriate use should be tailored to specific clinician types.
    Journal of Nuclear Cardiology 03/2014; · 2.85 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Clinical applicability of the appropriate use criteria for SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging has not yet been evaluated in Italy. We investigated the applicability of the Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) in Italy. The indications for testing were prospectively recorded in three different nuclear cardiology laboratories: a general hospital, an academic hospital, and a tertiary centre. Indications were categorized as appropriate, uncertain or inappropriate according to the 2009 AUC; the specialty of the ordering physician was also noted. SPECT results were classified as: normal, probably normal, uncertain, probably abnormal, abnormal. The presence and severity of ischaemia were also noted. Over a 9-month period, 2,134 patients (age 67 ± 10 years, 68 % men) were evaluated (62 % exercise stress test). On average, there were 700 (84 %) appropriate, 73 (7 %) inappropriate and 93 (9 %) uncertain tests. The rates for the appropriateness of indications were comparable in men and women (84 % and 83 %, not significant). As expected, the rate of nonnormal studies was higher (58 %) for appropriate than for inappropriate (33 %) indications. Appropriateness was lower in the tertiary centre (74 %), and uncertain (16 %) and inappropriate (10 %) indications were more common; this was related to the higher rate of outpatients scheduled by nonhospital cardiologists (37 %). The most common indications associated with inappropriate testing were: chest pain, low likelihood of coronary artery disease, interpretable ECG and able to exercise (29 %), and asymptomatic <2 years after percutaneous coronary intervention (24 %). In this preliminary evaluation of the AUC in Italy, the majority of studies were classified as appropriate, but a consistent proportion of scheduled SPECT studies, particularly by nonhospital cardiologists, were still categorized as uncertain or inappropriate. Educational approaches should be implemented to reduce the rate of less appropriate examinations. However, a substantial proportion (33 %) of inappropriate studies were classified as nonnormal, with 26 % of these patients having ischaemia.
    European Journal of Nuclear Medicine 03/2014; · 4.53 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The American College of Cardiology/American Society of Nuclear Cardiology published revised appropriate use criteria (AUC) for SPECT MPI in 2009. We assessed adherence to these guidelines and factors associated with inappropriate utilization at the University Medical Center. The AUC was applied retrospectively to 420 SPECT MPI studies. Two-sample t test, Fisher's exact test, and multivariable logistic regression models were used for analysis. There were 322 appropriate (86%) and 54 (14%) inappropriate studies. The odds of having an inappropriate test increased with younger age (P < .001) and female gender (P < .001). Subjects with diabetes (P = .007) and chest pain (P < .001) were less likely to have an inappropriate test. Academic outpatients were three times more likely to have an inappropriate study (P = .123), while community PCPs were 5.6 times (P = .011) and community cardiologists eight times more likely to order inappropriate tests (P = .031). Inappropriate SPECT MPI in low risk younger women is an important issue on the USA-Mexico border. Initiatives to reduce inappropriate SPECT MPI should focus on a few indications and evaluation of cardiovascular symptoms in younger age women in outpatient/community practices.
    Journal of Nuclear Cardiology 03/2014; · 2.85 Impact Factor

Similar Publications