Health Disparities in Lapses in Diabetic Retinopathy Care.

Objective: To develop a novel methodology to identify lapses in diabetic retinopathy care in electronic health records (EHRs) and evaluate health disparities by race and ethnicity. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Subjects: Adult patients with diabetes mellitus who were evaluated at the Wilmer Eye Institute from January 1, 2013 to April 2, 2022. Methods: The methodology to identify lapses in care first identified diabetic retinopathy screening or treatment visits and then compared the providers' recommended follow-up timeframe with the patient's actual time to next encounter. The association of race and ethnicity with odds of lapses in care was evaluated using a mixed-effects logistic regression model controlling for age, sex, insurance, severity of diabetic retinopathy, presence of other retinal disorders, and glaucoma. Main Outcome Measures: Lapses in diabetic retinopathy care. Results: The methodology to identify diabetic retinopathy-related visits had a 95.0% (95% confidence interval, 93.0-96.6) sensitivity and 98.8% (98.1-99.3) specificity as compared with a gold standard grader. The methodology resulted in a 97.3% (96.2-98.4) sensitivity and 98.1% (97.3-98.9) specificity for detecting a follow-up recommendation, with an average error of -0.05 (-0.31 to 0.21) weeks in extracting the precise timeframe. A total of 39 561 patients with 91 104 office visits were included in the analysis. The average age was 61.4 years. More than 3 (77.6%) in 4 patients had a lapse in care. In multivariable analysis, non-Hispanic Black patients had 1.24 (1.19-1.30) odds and Hispanic patients had 1.26 (1.13-1.40) odds of ever having a lapse in care compared with non-Hispanic White patients (P < 0.001, respectively). Conclusions: We have developed a reliable methodology for identifying lapses in diabetic retinopathy care that is tailored to a provider's recommended follow-up. Using this approach, we find that 3 in 4 patients experience a lapse in diabetic retinopathy care and that these rates are higher among non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic patients. Deploying this methodology in the EHR is one potential means by which to identify and mitigate lapses in critical ophthalmic care in patients with diabetes. Financial Disclosures: Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.

Imaging Informatics Fellowship Curriculum: Building Consensus on the Most Critical Topics and the Future of the Informatics Fellowship.

The existing fellowship imaging informatics curriculum, established in 2004, has not undergone formal revision since its inception and inaccurately reflects present-day radiology infrastructure. It insufficiently equips trainees for today's informatics challenges as current practices require an understanding of advanced informatics processes and more complex system integration. We sought to address this issue by surveying imaging informatics fellowship program directors across the country to determine the components and cutline for essential topics in a standardized imaging informatics curriculum, the consensus on essential versus supplementary knowledge, and the factors individual programs may use to determine if a newly developed topic is an essential topic. We further identified typical program structural elements and sought fellowship director consensus on offering official graduate trainee certification to imaging informatics fellows. Here, we aim to provide an imaging informatics fellowship director consensus on topics considered essential while still providing a framework for informatics fellowship programs to customize their individual curricula.

Radiology Resident Assessment and Feedback Dashboard.

Assessment of residents is optimally performed through processes and platforms that provide daily feedback, which can be immediately acted on. Given the documentation required by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME), effective data management, integration, and presentation are crucial to ease the burden of manual documentation and increase the timeliness of actionable information. To this end, the authors modeled the learning activities of residents using the Experience Application Programming Interface (xAPI) framework, which is a standard framework for the learning community. On the basis of the xAPI framework and using open-source software to extend their existing infrastructure, the authors developed a Web-based dashboard that provides residents with a more holistic view of their educational experience. The dashboard was designed around the ACGME radiology milestones and provides real-time feedback to residents using various assessment metrics derived from multiple data sources. The purpose of this article is to describe the dashboard's architecture and components, the design and technical considerations, and the lessons learned in implementing the dashboard. ©RSNA, 2018.

The Impact of Imaging Informatics Fellowships.

Imaging informatics (II) is an area within clinical informatics that is particularly important in the field of radiology. Provider groups have begun employing dedicated radiologist-informaticists to bridge medical, information technology and administrative functions, and academic institutions are meeting this demand through formal II fellowships. However, little is known about how these programs influence graduates' careers and perceptions about professional development. We electronically surveyed 26 graduates from US II fellowships and consensus leaders in the II community-many of whom were subspecialty diagnostic radiologists (68%) employed within academic institutions (48%)-about the perceived impact of II fellowships on career development and advancement. All graduates felt that II fellowship made them more valuable to employers, with the majority of reporting ongoing II roles (78%) and continued used of competencies (61%) and skills (56%) gained during fellowship in their current jobs. Other key benefits included access to mentors, protected time for academic work, networking opportunities, and positive impacts of annual compensation. Of respondents without II fellowship training, all would recommend fellowships to current trainees given the ability to gain a "still rare" but "essential skill set" that is "critical for future leaders in radiology" and "better job opportunities." While some respondents felt that II fellowships needed further formalization and standardization, most (85%) disagreed with requiring a 2-year II fellowship in order to qualify for board certification in clinical informatics. Instead, most believed that fellowships should be integrated with clinical residency or fellowship training while preserving formal didactics and unstructured project time. More work is needed to understand existing variations in II fellowship training structure and identify the optimal format for programs targeted at radiologists.

The Armstrong Institute Resident/Fellow Scholars: A Multispecialty Curriculum to Train Future Leaders in Patient Safety and Quality Improvement.

The objective was to determine if a year-long, multispecialty resident and fellow quality improvement (QI) curriculum is feasible and leads to improvements in QI beliefs and self-reported behaviors. The Armstrong Institute Resident/Fellow Scholars (AIRS) curriculum incorporated (a) a 2-day workshop in lean sigma methodology, (b) year-long interactive weekly small-group lectures, (c) mentored QI projects, and (d) practicum-based components to observe frontline QI efforts. Pre-post evaluation was performed with the Quality Improvement Knowledge Application Tool (QIKAT) and the Systems Thinking Scale (STS) using the Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank test. Sixteen residents and fellows started the AIRS curriculum and 14 finished. Scholars' pre and post mean scores significantly improved: STS 3.06 pre versus 3.60 post (P < .01) and QIKAT 1.24 pre versus 2.46 post (P < .01). Most scholars (92%) agreed that skills learned in the curriculum will help in their future careers. A multispecialty QI curriculum for trainees is feasible and increases QI beliefs and self-reported behaviors.

Quality Measurements in Radiology: A Systematic Review of the Literature and Survey of Radiology Benefit Management Groups.

PURPOSE: As the US health care system transitions toward value-based reimbursement, there is an increasing need for metrics to quantify health care quality. Within radiology, many quality metrics are in use, and still more have been proposed, but there have been limited attempts to systematically inventory these measures and classify them using a standard framework. The purpose of this study was to develop an exhaustive inventory of public and private sector imaging quality metrics classified according to the classic Donabedian framework (structure, process, and outcome). METHODS: A systematic review was performed in which eligibility criteria included published articles (from 2000 onward) from multiple databases. Studies were double-read, with discrepancies resolved by consensus. For the radiology benefit management group (RBM) survey, the six known companies nationally were surveyed. Outcome measures were organized on the basis of standard categories (structure, process, and outcome) and reported using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. RESULTS: The search strategy yielded 1,816 citations; review yielded 110 reports (29 included for final analysis). Three of six RBMs (50%) responded to the survey; the websites of the other RBMs were searched for additional metrics. Seventy-five unique metrics were reported: 35 structure (46%), 20 outcome (27%), and 20 process (27%) metrics. For RBMs, 35 metrics were reported: 27 structure (77%), 4 process (11%), and 4 outcome (11%) metrics. The most commonly cited structure, process, and outcome metrics included ACR accreditation (37%), ACR Appropriateness Criteria (85%), and peer review (95%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Imaging quality metrics are more likely to be structural (46%) than process (27%) or outcome (27%) based (P < .05). As national value-based reimbursement programs increasingly emphasize outcome-based metrics, radiologists must keep pace by developing the data infrastructure required to collect outcome-based quality metrics.

The health care value transparency movement and its implications for radiology.

The US health care system is in the midst of disruptive changes intended to expand access, improve outcomes, and lower costs. As part of this movement, a growing number of stakeholders have advocated dramatically increasing consumer transparency into the quality and price of health care services. The authors review the general movement toward American health care value transparency within the public, private, and nonprofit sectors, with an emphasis on those initiatives most relevant to radiology. They conclude that radiology, along with other "ancillary services," has been a major focus of early efforts to enhance consumer price transparency. By contrast, radiology as a field remains in the "middle of the pack" with regard to quality transparency. There is thus the danger that radiology value transparency in its current form will stimulate primarily price-based competition, erode provider profit margins, and disincentivize quality. The authors conclude with suggested actions radiologists can take to ensure that a more optimal balance is struck between quality transparency and price transparency, one that will enable true value-based competition among radiologists rather than commoditization.

Changes to stage 1 meaningful use in 2014: impact on radiologists.

The goal of this work is to provide radiologists an update regarding changes to stage 1 of meaningful use in 2014. These changes were promulgated in the final rulemaking released by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology in September 2012. Under the new rules, radiologists are exempt from meaningful use penalties provided that they are listed as radiologists under the Provider Enrollment, Chain and Ownership System (PECOS). A major caveat is that this exemption can be removed at any time. Additional concerns are discussed in the main text. Additional changes discussed include software editions independent of meaningful use stage (i.e., 2011 edition versus 2014 edition), changes to the definition of certified electronic health record technology (CEHRT), and changes to specific measures and exemptions to those measures. The new changes regarding stage 1 add complexity to an already complex program, but overall make achieving meaningful use a win-win situation for radiologists. There are no penalties for failure and incentive payments for success. The cost of upgrading to CEHRT may be much less than the incentive payments, adding a potential new source of revenue. Additional benefits may be realized if the radiology department can build upon a modern electronic health record to improve their practice and billing patterns. Meaningful use and electronic health records represent an important evolutionary step in US healthcare, and it is imperative that radiologists are active participants in the process.

Neuroradiology second opinion consultation service: assessment of duplicative imaging.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to characterize the performance of the Neuroradiology Second Opinion Consultation Service (NSOCS) at our institution to establish the rate, causes, and implications of requests for repeat imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We queried 11,753 complete reports of all NSOCS studies for calendar year 2010 for the words "repeat" and "follow-up." We categorized study limitations described in these reports into poor image quality, missing or inadequate MR sequences or CT reformats, lack of IV contrast administration where otherwise deemed appropriate, an "other" category for miscellaneous items, and a "clarification" category for indeterminate findings or recommendations for more advanced protocols. The corresponding available electronic medical records were reviewed. An estimated financial analysis of the NSOCS was additionally performed. RESULTS: Repeat imaging studies were recommended in 1.5% of cases. In 0.3% of all cases, a subsequent repeat examination was documented in the electronic medical records. Study limitations were most commonly due to poor image quality (77.5%), followed by missing or inadequate MR sequences or CT reformats (20.3%). The additional estimated cost of repeat imaging was calculated at $14,019.34, with an overall per-patient cost of $2.12 for the service. CONCLUSION: Reviewing outside studies generates a very low rate of requests for and performance of repeat studies, and is not a major additional health care expense.

Reporting of critical findings in neuroradiology.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to assess compliance among academic neuroradiologists in reporting institutionally derived critical findings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed 3054 neuroradiology CT and MRI reports generated in 1 month. Reports were categorized by whether or not they contained a critical finding based on a previously established list. The reports were subcategorized by whether the reporting neuroradiologist flagged the report as containing a critical finding and whether the radiologist verbally communicated the critical finding to the referring clinician. Reports were divided into day or night categories and the frequency of critical findings for each time period was calculated. RESULTS: Of the 3054 reports included in this study, 301 (9.9%) had critical findings. Of those 301 reports, 233 (77.4%) were flagged and the referring clinician was called. Of the remaining 68 reports with critical findings, the reporting radiologist did not call the clinician about 35.3% of them (24/68). Of the 2753 reports without critical findings, 2658 (96.5%) were appropriately not flagged and the clinician was not called. However, radiologists called clinicians about 3.5% (95/2753) of the reports without critical findings and erroneously flagged 68.4% (65/95) of those reports as critical. A majority of the cases with critical findings were reported at night (55.1%) despite the fact that 67.2% of the studies occurred during the day. CONCLUSION: Compliance with reporting and communicating critical findings must be monitored. Calling clinicians to report noncritical findings may result in unnecessary interruptions in work flow for radiologists and referring health care providers.

Enabling comparative effectiveness research with informatics: show me the data!

RATIONALE: Both outcomes researchers and informaticians are concerned with information and data. As such, some of the central challenges to conducting successful comparative effectiveness research can be addressed with informatics solutions. METHODS: Specific informatics solutions which address how data in comparative effectiveness research are enriched, stored, shared, and analyzed are reviewed. RESULTS: Imaging data can be made more quantitative, uniform, and structured for researchers through the use of lexicons and structured reporting. Secure and scalable storage of research data is enabled through data warehouses and cloud services. There are a number of national efforts to help researchers share research data and analysis tools. CONCLUSION: There is a diverse arsenal of informatics tools designed to meet the needs of comparative effective researchers.