Analytics to monitor local impact of the Protecting Access to Medicare Act's imaging clinical decision support requirements.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed is to: (1) extend the Integrating the Biology and the Bedside (i2b2) data and application models to include medical imaging appropriate use criteria, enabling it to serve as a platform to monitor local impact of the Protecting Access to Medicare Act's (PAMA) imaging clinical decision support (CDS) requirements, and (2) validate the i2b2 extension using data from the Medicare Imaging Demonstration (MID) CDS implementation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study provided a reference implementation and assessed its validity and reliability using data from the MID, the federal government's predecessor to PAMA's imaging CDS program. The Star Schema was extended to describe the interactions of imaging ordering providers with the CDS. New ontologies were added to enable mapping medical imaging appropriateness data to i2b2 schema. z-Ratio for testing the significance of the difference between 2 independent proportions was utilized. RESULTS: The reference implementation used 26 327 orders for imaging examinations which were persisted to the modified i2b2 schema. As an illustration of the analytical capabilities of the Web Client, we report that 331/1192 or 28.1% of imaging orders were deemed appropriate by the CDS system at the end of the intervention period (September 2013), an increase from 162/1223 or 13.2% for the first month of the baseline period, December 2011 (P = .0212), consistent with previous studies. CONCLUSIONS: The i2b2 platform can be extended to monitor local impact of PAMA's appropriateness of imaging ordering CDS requirements.

Imaging for low back pain: is clinical use consistent with guidelines? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The problem of imaging patients with low back pain (LBP) when it is not indicated is well recognized. The converse is also possible, although rarely considered. The extent of these two problems is presently unclear. PURPOSE: This study aimed to estimate how commonly overuse, and also underuse, of imaging occurs in the management of LBP, and how appropriate use of imaging is assessed. DESIGN: This is a systematic review and meta-analysis. PATIENT SAMPLE: The sample comprised patients with LBP presenting to primary care. OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportions of inappropriate referral, and inappropriate non-referral, for diagnostic imaging for LBP were the outcome measures. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL were searched from January 1, 1995 to December 17, 2017. Two authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data. Meta-analyses were performed where appropriate, and strength of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. RESULTS: Thirty-three studies were included. In patients referred for lumbar imaging, 34.8% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 27.1, 43.3) were judged inappropriate by the absence of red flags for serious pathology and 31.6% (95% CI: 28.3, 35.1) were judged inappropriate by the criteria of no clinical suspicion of pathology. In patients presenting for care, imaging was inappropriately performed in 27.7% of cases (95% CI: 21.3, 35.1) when judged by duration of episode, 9.0% of cases (95% CI: 7.4, 11.0) when judged by absence of red flags, and 7.0% (95% CI: 1.8, 23.3) when judged by no clinical suspicion of pathology. In patients presenting for care, imaging was not performed where appropriately indicated in 65.6% (95% CI: 51.8, 77.2) of patients who presented with red flags, and 60.8% (95% CI: 42.0, 76.8) with clinical suspicion of serious pathology. CONCLUSIONS: Inappropriate imaging is common in LBP management, including both overuse in those where imaging is not indicated and underuse of imaging when it is indicated. Appreciating that both underuse and overuse can occur is fundamental to efforts to improve imaging practice to align with current guidelines and best evidence.