Novel Quality Measure Set: Closing the Completion Loop on Radiology Follow-up Recommendations for Noncritical Actionable Incidental Findings.

BACKGROUND: Care gaps occur when radiology follow-up recommendations are poorly communicated or not completed, resulting in missed or delayed diagnosis potentially leading to worse patient outcomes. This ACR-led initiative assembled a technical expert panel (TEP) to advise development of quality measures intended to improve communication and drive increased completion rates for radiology follow-up recommendations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multistakeholder TEP was assembled to advise the development of quality measures. The project scope, limited to noncritical actionable incidental findings (AIFs), encourages practices to develop and implement systems ensuring appropriate communication and follow-up to completion. RESULTS: A suite of nine measures were developed: four outcome measures include closing the loop on completion of radiology follow-up recommendations for nonemergent AIFs (with pulmonary nodule and abdominal aortic aneurysm use cases) and overall cancer diagnoses. Five process measures address communication and tracking of AIFs: inclusion of available evidence or guidelines informing the recommendation, communication of AIFs to the practice managing ongoing care, identifying when AIFs have been communicated to the patient, and employing tracking and reminder systems for AIFs. CONCLUSION: This ACR-led initiative developed a measure set intended to improve patient outcomes by ensuring that AIFs are appropriately communicated and followed up. The intent of these measures is to focus improvement on specific areas in which gaps in communication and AIF follow-up may occur, prompting systems to devote resources that will identify and implement solutions to improve patient care.

Palliative care and imaging utilisation for patients with cancer.

OBJECTIVE: This observational study explores the association between palliative care (PC) involvement and high-cost imaging utilisation for patients with cancer patients during the last 3 months of life. METHODS: Adult patients with cancer who died between 1 January 2012 and 31 May 2015 were identified. Referral to PC, intensity of PC service use, and non-emergent oncological imaging utilisation were determined. Associations between PC utilisation and proportion of patients imaged and mean number of studies per patient (mean imaging intensity (MII)) were assessed for the last 3 months and the last month of life. Similar analyses were performed for randomly matched case-control pairs (n = 197). Finally, the association between intensity of PC involvement and imaging utilisation was assessed. RESULTS: 3784 patients were included, with 3523 (93%) never referred to PC and 261 (7%) seen by PC, largely before the last month of life (61%). Similar proportions of patients with and without PC referral were imaged during the last 3 months, while a greater proportion of patients with PC referral were imaged in the last month of life. PC involvement was not associated with significantly different MII during either time frame. In the matched-pairs analysis, a greater proportion of patients previously referred to PC received imaging in the period between the first PC encounter and death, and in the last month of life. MII remained similar between PC and non-PC groups. Finally, intensity of PC services was similar for imaged and non-imaged patients in the final 3 months and 1 month of life. During these time periods, increased PC intensity was not associated with decreased MII. CONCLUSIONS: PC involvement in end-of-life oncological care was not associated with decreased use of non-emergent, high-cost imaging. The role of advanced imaging in the PC setting requires further investigation.

Identifying tests related to breast cancer care in claims data.

To develop a method for calculating rates of testing for breast cancer recurrence in patients who have already undergone initial treatment for breast cancer, we calculated rates in a cohort of Medicare breast cancer patients and an age-matched noncancer cohort. We first used only tests with claims including diagnosis codes indicating invasive breast cancer and then used all tests regardless of diagnosis code. For each method, we calculated testing rates in the breast cancer cohort above the background rate in the noncancer population. The two methods provided similar estimates of testing prevalence and frequency, with exception of prevalence of CT.

Geographic Variation in Postoperative Imaging for Low-Risk Breast Cancer.

Background: The objective of this study was to examine the presence and magnitude of US geographic variation in use rates of both recommended and high-cost imaging in young patients with early-stage breast cancer during the 18 month period after surgical treatment of their primary tumor. Methods: Using the Truven Health MarketScan Commercial Database, a descriptive analysis was conducted of geographic variation in annual rates of dedicated breast imaging and high-cost body imaging of 36,045 women aged 18 to 64 years treated with surgery for invasive unilateral breast cancer between 2010 and 2012. Multivariate hierarchical analysis examined the relationship between likelihood of imaging and patient characteristics, with metropolitan statistical area (MSA) serving as a random effect. Patient characteristics included age group, BRCA1/2 carrier status, family history of breast cancer, combination of breast surgery type and radiation therapy, drug therapy, and payer type. All MSAs in the United States were included, with areas outside MSAs within a given state aggregated into a single area for analytic purposes. Results: Descriptive analysis of rates of imaging use and intensity within MSA regions revealed wide geographic variation, irrespective of treatment cohort or age group. Increased probability of recommended postoperative dedicated breast imaging was primarily associated with age and treatment including both surgery and radiation therapy, followed by MSA region (odds ratio, 1.42). Increased probability of PET use-a high-cost imaging modality for which postoperative routine use is not recommended in the absence of specific clinical findings-was primarily associated with surgery type followed by MSA region (odds ratio, 1.82). Conclusions: In patients with breast cancer treated for low-risk disease, geography has effects on the rates of posttreatment imaging, suggesting that some patients are not receiving beneficial dedicated breast imaging, and high-cost nonbreast imaging may not be targeted to those groups most likely to benefit.

Management of Incidental Pituitary Findings on CT, MRI, and 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose PET: A White Paper of the ACR Incidental Findings Committee.

The ACR Incidental Findings Committee presents recommendations for managing pituitary findings that are incidentally detected on CT, MRI and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET. The Pituitary Subcommittee, which included radiologists practicing neuroradiology and an endocrinologist, developed this algorithm. The recommendations draw from published evidence and expert opinion and were finalized by informal iterative consensus. Algorithm branches successively categorize pituitary findings on the basis of imaging features. They terminate with an ascertainment of an indolent lesion (with sufficient confidence to discontinue follow-up) or a management recommendation. The algorithm addresses most, but not all, pathologies and clinical scenarios. The goal is to improve the quality of care by providing guidance on how to manage incidentally detected pituitary findings.

Assessing the Recall Rate for Screening Mammography: Comparing the Medicare Hospital Compare Dataset With the National Mammography Database.

OBJECTIVE: High-quality screening mammography has been shown to substantially reduce mortality from breast cancer. Recall rate is a principal performance metric for screening mammography because it directly relates to the rate of false-positive examinations. This study aims to compare the recall rate derived using two sources-the claims-based Hospital Compare (HC) dataset from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services versus the National Mammography Database (NMD) from the American College of Radiology-to understand the implications in pay-for-performance and quality improvement activities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study retrospectively compared the recall rate reported by NMD facilities with that reported in the HC dataset. Site matching was performed by facility name and zip code, followed by manual verification. Scatterplots, correlations, a paired t test, and Bland-Altman analysis were performed to assess association between the two measures. RESULTS: During the period from October 1 to December 1, 2016, 92 facilities were unambiguously matched using 2014-2015 records in both datasets. The recall rates were positively correlated (r = 0.428, p < 0.001), but the mean HC recall rate (8.5% ± 2.86% [SD]) was significantly (p < 0.001) lower than the mean NMD recall rate (10.6% ± 3.90%). CONCLUSION: The NMD and HC are two commonly used datasets for measuring screening mammography recall rate. Although recall rates are correlated at the individual facility level, there are important differences that have implications for quality improvement and pay-for-performance.

Report of the ACR's Economics Committee on Value-Based Payment Models.

A major outcome of the current health care reform process is the move away from unrestricted fee-for-service payment models toward those that are based on the delivery of better patient value and outcomes. The authors' purpose, therefore, is to critically evaluate and define those components of the overall imaging enterprise that deliver meaningful value to both patients and referrers and to determine how these components might be measured and quantified. These metrics might then be used to lobby providers and payers for sustainable payment solutions for radiologists and radiology services. The authors evaluated radiology operations and services using the framework of the imaging value chain, which divides radiology service into a number of discrete value-added activities, which ultimately deliver the primary product, most often the actionable report for diagnostic imaging or an effective outcome for interventional radiology. These value activities include scheduling and imaging appropriateness and stewardship, patient preparation, protocol design, modality operations, reporting, report communication, and clinical follow-up (eg, mammography reminder letters). Two further categories are hospital or health care organization citizenship and examination outcome. Each is discussed in turn, with specific activities highlighted.

A Radiologist's Primer on Bundles and Care Episodes.

Bundled or episode payments are among the most heavily emphasized approaches to aligning incentives and promoting care coordination, efficiency, and accountability in health care redesign. Bundled or episode payments price a market basket of services for an entire episode of care with both a clearly defined trigger and termination. Because the radiologist is "ancillary" in many bundles, the specialty is often unaware of the phenomenon. This is likely to change rapidly. Radiology is pivotal in high-prevalence, high-impact care areas such as low back pain and stroke that are focuses of widely used system performance metrics. More important, radiology is central to the diagnosis and management of a wide range of important diagnostic issues in areas such as breast cancer, pulmonary nodules, and incidental findings. Three models of bundled care will probably involve radiology intimately in the near future. Pure radiology bundles might be constructed for breast cancer screening and diagnosis, and these could be priced on the basis of guideline-based best-practice frequencies of care events such as recall and biopsy. Clinical bundles, for example low back pain, could be priced on the basis of optimal imaging frequencies. Finally, pricing of imaging studies might include evidence-based frequencies of follow-up imaging for incidental findings.