Financial Viability of the No Surprises Act Independent Dispute Resolution Process: Radiology and Other Hospital-Based Specialties.

BACKGROUND. The federal No Surprises Act (NSA), designed to eliminate surprise medical billing for out-of-network (OON) care for circumstances beyond patients' control, established the independent dispute resolution (IDR) process to settle clinician-payer payment disputes for OON care. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of our study was to assess the fraction of OON claims for which radiologists and other hospital-based specialists can expect to at least break even when challenging payer-determined payments through the NSA IDR process, as a measure of the process's financial viability. METHODS. This retrospective study extracted claims from a national commercial database (Optum's deidentified Clinformatics Data Mart) for hospital-based specialties occurring on the same day as in-network emergency department (ED) visits or inpatient stays from January 2017 to December 2021. OON claims were identified. OON claims batching was simulated using IDR rules. Maximum potential recovered payments from the IDR process were estimated as the difference between the charges and the allowed amount. The percentages of claims for which the maximum potential payment and one-quarter of this amount (a more realistic payment recovery estimate) would exceed IDR fees were determined, using US$150 and US$450 fee thresholds to approximate the range of final 2024 IDR fees. These values represented the percentage of OON claims that would be financially viable candidates for IDR submission. RESULTS. Among 76,221,264 claims for hospital-based specialties associated with in-network ED visits or inpatient stays, 1,482,973 (1.9%) were OON. The maximum potential payment exceeded fee thresholds of US$150 and US$450 for 55.0% and 32.1%, respectively, of batched OON claims for radiologists and 76.8% and 61.3% of batched OON claims for all other hospital-based specialties combined. At payment of one-quarter of that amount, these values were 26.9% and 10.6%, respectively, for radiologists and 56.6% and 38.4% for all other hospital-based specialties combined. CONCLUSION. The IDR process would be financially unviable for a substantial fraction of OON claims for hospital-based specialists (more so for radiology than for other such specialties). CLINICAL IMPACT. Although the NSA enacted important patient protections, IDR fees limit clinicians' opportunities to dispute payer-determined payments and potentially undermine their bargaining power in contract negotiations. Therefore, IDR rulemaking may negatively impact patient access to in-network care.

Assessing the Relationship Between Race, Language, and Surgical Admissions in the Emergency Department.

INTRODUCTION: English proficiency and race are both independently known to affect surgical access and quality, but relatively little is known about the impact of race and limited English proficiency (LEP) on admission for emergency surgery from the emergency department (ED). Our objective was to examine the influence of race and English proficiency on admission for emergency surgery from the ED. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective observational cohort study from January 1-December 31, 2019 at a large, quaternary-care urban, academic medical center with a 66-bed ED Level I trauma and burn center. We included ED patients of all self-reported races reporting a preferred language other than English and requiring an interpreter or declaring English as their preferred language (control group). A multivariable logistic regression was fit to assess the association of LEP status, race, age, gender, method of arrival to the ED, insurance status, and the interaction between LEP status and race with admission for surgery from the ED. RESULTS: A total of 85,899 patients (48.1% female) were included in this analysis, of whom 3,179 (3.7%) were admitted for emergent surgery. Regardless of LEP status, patients identifying as Black (odds ratio [OR] 0.456, 95% CI 0.388-0.533; P<0.005), Asian [OR 0.759, 95% CI 0.612-0.929]; P=0.009), or female [OR 0.926, 95% CI 0.862-0.996]; P=0.04) had significantly lower odds for admission for surgery from the ED compared to White patients. Compared to individuals on Medicare, those with private insurance [OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.13-1.39; P <0.005) were significantly more likely to be admitted for emergent surgery, whereas those without insurance [OR 0.581, 95% CI 0.323-0.958; P=0.05) were significantly less likely to be admitted for emergent surgery. There was no significant difference in odds of admission for surgery between LEP vs non-LEP patients. CONCLUSION: Individuals without health insurance and those identifying as female, Black, or Asian had significantly lower odds of admission for surgery from the ED compared to those with health insurance, males, and those self-identifying as White, respectively. Future studies should assess the reasons underpinning this finding to elucidate impact on patient outcomes.

Effect of the Extended Focused Assessment With Sonography for Trauma on the Screening Performance of the National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study Chest Decision Instrument.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Developed to decrease unnecessary thoracic computed tomography use in adult blunt trauma patients, the National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study (NEXUS) Chest clinical decision instrument does not include the extended Focused Assessment with Sonography in Trauma (eFAST). We assessed whether eFAST improves the NEXUS Chest clinical decision instrument's diagnostic performance and may replace the chest radiograph (CXR) as a predictor variable. METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of prospective data from 8 Level I trauma centers from 2011-2014. We compared performance of modified clinical decision instruments that (1) added eFAST as a predictor (eFAST-added clinical decision instrument), and (2) replaced CXR with eFAST (eFAST-replaced clinical decision instrument), in screening for blunt thoracic injuries. RESULTS: One thousand nine hundred fifty-seven patients had documented computed tomography, CXR, clinical NEXUS criteria, and adequate eFAST; 624 (31.9%) patients had blunt thoracic injuries, and 126 (6.4%) had major injuries. Compared to the NEXUS Chest clinical decision instrument, the eFAST-added clinical decision instrument demonstrated unchanged screening performance for major injury (sensitivity 0.98 [0.94 to 1.00], specificity 0.28 [0.26 to 0.30]) or any injury (sensitivity 0.97 [0.95 to 0.98], specificity 0.21 [0.19 to 0.23]). The eFAST-replaced clinical decision instrument demonstrated unchanged sensitivity for major injury (sensitivity 0.93 [0.87 to 0.97], specificity 0.31 [0.29 to 0.34]) and decreased sensitivity for any injury (0.93 [0.91 to 0.951] versus 0.97 [0.953 to 0.98]). CONCLUSION: In our secondary analysis, adding eFAST as a predictor variable did not improve the diagnostic screening performance of the original NEXUS Chest clinical decision instrument; eFAST cannot replace the CXR criterion of the NEXUS Chest clinical decision instrument.

The Rapid Evaluation of COVID-19 Vaccination in Emergency Departments for Underserved Patients Study.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Emergency departments (EDs) often serve vulnerable populations who may lack primary care and have suffered disproportionate COVID-19 pandemic effects. Comparing patients having and lacking a regular source of medical care and other ED patient characteristics, we assessed COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, reasons for not wanting the vaccine, perceived access to vaccine sites, and willingness to get the vaccine as part of ED care. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional survey conducted from December 10, 2020, to March 7, 2021, at 15 safety net US EDs. Primary outcomes were COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, reasons for vaccine hesitancy, and sites (including EDs) for potential COVID-19 vaccine receipt. RESULTS: Of 2,575 patients approached, 2,301 (89.4%) participated. Of the 18.4% of respondents who lacked a regular source of medical care, 65% used the ED as their usual source of health care. The overall rate of vaccine hesitancy was 39%; the range among the 15 sites was 28% to 58%. Respondents who lacked a regular source of medical care were more commonly vaccine hesitant than those who had a regular source of medical care (47% versus 38%, 9% difference, 95% confidence interval 4% to 14%). Other characteristics associated with greater vaccine hesitancy were younger age, female sex, Black race, Latinx ethnicity, and not having received an influenza vaccine in the past 5 years. Of the 61% who would accept a COVID-19 vaccine, 21% stated that they lacked a primary physician or clinic at which to receive it; the vast majority (95%) of these respondents would accept the COVID-19 vaccine as part of their care in the ED. CONCLUSION: ED patients who lack a regular source of medical care are particularly hesitant regarding COVID-19 vaccination. Most COVID-19 vaccine acceptors would accept it as part of their care in the ED. EDs may play pivotal roles in COVID-19 vaccine messaging and delivery to highly vulnerable populations.

Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing of Emergency Department Postdischarge Nurse Calls.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Postdischarge telephone calls by nurses can decrease patient return rates to healthcare systems. To date, call program costs have not been compared with patient return rates to determine cost-effectiveness. We used time-driven activity-based costing to determine the costs associated with such programs. We developed process maps for a postdischarge nurse call program in the emergency department of an urban, quaternary care, academic, Level 1 trauma center. Our primary outcome was the total cost of calls, which is based on the length of the calls (after 8 hours of observation) and the total capacity rate cost based on national registered nurse salary and space costs. Seven-day return rate differences between patients reached and those not reached from July 2018 to March 2019 were determined with a Z-test. We observed 113 postdischarge calls for 79 patients. The mean (SD) length of calls for patients reached was 4.3 minutes (1.8) compared with 2.6 minutes (0.6) for those not reached. The total capacity rate cost for calls was $1.09/minute, or $4.69 per patient reached and $2.83 per patient not reached. A retrospective analysis of 6,698 patients reached and 6,519 patients not reached showed hospital return rates of 3.5% and 6.3% (p < .0001), respectively. The study findings show that postdischarge calls were associated with decreased return rates to the emergency department and a savings of $134.89 per prevention of one return. In deciding whether to use postdischarge call programs, healthcare systems should also consider the effects on specific demographics and the potential benefits of greater patient satisfaction and increased treatment adherence.

A Video-based Debriefing Program to Support Emergency Medicine Clinician Well-being During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: Emergency clinicians on the frontline of the coronavirus pandemic experience a range of emotions including anxiety, fear, and grief. Debriefing can help clinicians process these emotions, but the coronavirus pandemic makes it difficult to create a physically and psychologically safe space in the emergency department (ED) to perform this intervention. In response, we piloted a video-based debriefing program to support emergency clinician well-being. We report the details of our program and results of our evaluation of its acceptability and perceived value to emergency clinicians during the pandemic. METHODS: ED attending physicians, resident physicians, and non-physician practitioners (NPP) at our quaternary-care academic medical center were invited to participate in role-based, weekly one-hour facilitated debriefings using Zoom. ED attendings with experience in debriefing led each session and used an explorative approach that focused on empathy and normalizing reactions. At the end of the pilot, we distributed to participants an anonymous 10-point survey that included multiple-answer questions and visual analogue scales. RESULTS: We completed 18 debriefings with 68 unique participants (29 attending physicians, 6 resident physicians, and 33 NPPs. A total of 76% of participants responded to our survey and 77% of respondents participated in at least two debriefings. Emergency clinicians reported that the most common reasons to participate in the debriefings were "to enhance my sense of community and connection" (81%) followed by "to support colleagues" (75%). Debriefing with members of the same role group (92%) and the Zoom platform (81%) were considered to be helpful aspects of the debriefing structure. Although emergency clinicians found these sessions to be useful (78.8 +/- 17.6) interquartile range: 73-89), NPPs were less comfortable speaking up (58.5 +/- 23.6) than attending physicians (77.8 +/- 25.0) (p = < 0.008). CONCLUSION: Emergency clinicians participating in a video-based debriefing program during the coronavirus pandemic found it to be an acceptable and useful approach to support emotional well-being. Our program provided participants with a platform to support each other and maintain a sense of community and connection. Other EDs should consider implementing a debriefing program to safeguard the emotional well-being of their emergency clinician workforce.

Impact of Urgent Care Openings on Emergency Department Visits to Two Academic Medical Centers Within an Integrated Health Care System.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: The effect of urgent cares on local emergency department (ED) patient volumes is presently unknown. In this paper, we aimed to assess the change in low-acuity ED utilization at 2 academic medical centers in relation to patient proximity to an affiliated urgent care. METHODS: We created a geospatial database of ED visits occurring between April 2016 and March 2018 to 2 academic medical centers in an integrated health care system, geocoded by patient home address. We used logistic regression to characterize the relationship between the likelihood of patients visiting the ED for a low-acuity condition, based on ED discharge diagnosis, and urgent care center proximity, defined as living within 1 mile of an open urgent care center, for each of the academic medical centers in the system, adjusting for spatial, temporal, and patient factors. RESULTS: We identified a statistically significant reduction in the likelihood of ED visits for low-acuity conditions by patients living within 1 mile of an urgent care center at 1 of the 2 academic medical centers, with an adjusted odds ratio of 0.87 (95% confidence interval 0.78 to 0.98). There was, however, no statistically significant reduction at the other affiliated academic medical center. Further analysis showed a statistically significant temporal relationship between time since urgent care center opening and likelihood of a low-acuity ED visit, with approximately a 1% decrease in the odds of a low-acuity visit for every month that the proximal urgent care center was open (odds ratio 0.99; 95% confidence interval 0.985 to 0.997). CONCLUSION: Although further research is needed to assess the factors driving urgent care centers' variable influence on low-acuity ED use, these findings suggest that in similar settings urgent care center development may be an effective strategy for health systems hoping to decrease ED utilization for low-acuity conditions at academic medical centers.

What Physicians and Health Organizations Should Know About Mandated Imaging Appropriate Use Criteria.

The Appropriate Use Criteria Program, enacted by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services in response to the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014 (PAMA), aims to reduce inappropriate and unnecessary imaging by mandating use of clinical decision support (CDS) by all providers who order advanced imaging examinations (magnetic resonance imaging; computed tomography; and nuclear medicine studies, including positron emission tomography). Beginning 1 January 2020, documentation of an interaction with a certified CDS system using approved appropriate use criteria will be required on all Medicare claims for advanced imaging in all emergency department patients and outpatients as a prerequisite for payment. The Appropriate Use Criteria Program will initially cover 8 priority clinical areas, including several (such as headache and low back pain) commonly encountered by internal medicine providers. All providers and organizations that order and provide advanced imaging must understand program requirements and their options for compliance strategies. Substantial resources and planning will be needed to comply with PAMA regulations and avoid unintended negative consequences on workflow and payments. However, robust evidence supporting the desired outcome of reducing inappropriate use of advanced imaging is lacking.

Gender Differences in Faculty Rank Among Academic Emergency Physicians in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to complete a comprehensive analysis of gender differences in faculty rank among U.S. emergency physicians that reflected all academic emergency physicians. METHODS: We assembled a comprehensive list of academic emergency medicine (EM) physicians with U.S. medical school faculty appointments from Doximity.com linked to detailed information on physician gender, age, years since residency completion, scientific authorship, National Institutes of Health (NIH) research funding, and participation in clinical trials. To estimate gender differences in faculty rank, multivariable logistic regression models were used that adjusted for these factors. RESULTS: Our study included 3,600 academic physicians (28%, or 1,016, female). Female emergency physicians were younger than their male colleagues (mean [±SD] age was 43.8 [±8.7] years for females and 47.4 [±9.9] years for males [p < 0.001]), had fewer years since residency completion (12.4 years vs. 15.6 years, p < 0.001), had fewer total and first/last author publications (4.7 vs. 8.6 total publications, p < 0.001; 4.3 vs. 7.1 first or last author publications, p < 0.001), and were less likely to be principal investigators on NIH grants (1.2% vs. 2.9%, p = 0.002) or clinical trials (1.8% vs. 4.4%, p < 0.001). In unadjusted analysis, male physicians were more likely than female physicians to hold the rank of associate or full professor versus assistant professor (13.7 percentage point difference, p < 0.001), a relationship that persisted after multivariable adjustment (5.5 percentage point difference, p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Female academic EM physicians are less likely to hold the rank of associate or full professor compared to male physicians even after detailed adjustment for other factors that may influence faculty rank.

Analysis of current financial relationships between emergency physicians and industry.

OBJECTIVE: Characterize the frequency and magnitude of all categories of publicly reported financial payments made to emergency physicians (EPs) in the United States (U.S.) in 2017. METHODS: This cross-sectional study of the 2017 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments Database was exempt from Institutional Review Board Review. We calculated descriptive statistics of the frequency, type, and amount (medians) of general, research, and ownerships transactions made to EPs from industry, described regional differences of median payments to EPs, and characterized the drugs or devices most commonly associated with transactions. RESULTS: In 2017, among 40,899 practicing U.S. EPs, 14,447 (35.4%) received 51,870 general payments from industry totaling $12,870,832. The median per-physician payment was $18.30 (interquartile range [IQR], $13.63-$60.90). The most frequent transaction was food and beverage (89.6%), though most payments by dollar amount were related to speaker and consulting fees (74.5%). Antithrombotics were the most frequently drug or device associated with transactions. Only 35 (0.08%) and 20 (0.05%) EPs had research and ownership relationships with industry, respectively. A significant difference was observed in median payments per physician across all U.S. Census regions (p < 0.01) except when comparing Northeast and West (p = 1.00). CONCLUSIONS: Over one-third of U.S. EPs had general payments from industry in 2017, while <1% of EPs had either research and ownership payments during this time period. Consistent with previous research, most payments to EPs are of low monetary value. Antithrombotics remain the most frequent drug associated with payments to EPs.

Trends and Variation in the Utilization and Diagnostic Yield of Chest Imaging for Medicare Patients With Suspected Pulmonary Embolism in the Emergency Department.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to assess trends and variation in chest CT utilization in the emergency department (ED) and its diagnostic yield for suspected pulmonary embolism (PE) among a national sample of Medicare beneficiaries. The relationship between hospital and provider characteristics is also discussed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted an observational analysis of Medicare beneficiaries evaluated in the ED for suspected PE from 2000 to 2009. Standard Medicare analytic files representing a 20% sample of fee-for-service beneficiaries were linked to the American Hospital Association Annual Survey of Hospitals, American Medical Association Physician Masterfile, Medicare Physician Identification and Eligibility Registry, and Dartmouth Atlas Project to calculate geographic- and physician-level chest CT utilization (i.e., the proportion of ED visits involving chest CT examination for suspected PE) and diagnostic yield (i.e., the proportion of chest CT examinations with a positive PE diagnosis). RESULTS: Of 2.5 million ED visits, 2.5% (n = 164,274) included chest CT for suspected PE; 6.2% visits (n = 10,121) resulted in positive findings for PE. Between 2000 and 2009, chest CT utilization increased fivefold. Geographic variation in CT utilization (median, 2.38%; interquartile range [IQR], 1.91-2.92%) and diagnostic yield (median, 6.31%; IQR, 5.11-7.66%) was observed between 306 hospital referral regions. Physician use of imaging was explained by greater experience (lower utilization and higher yield) and emergency medicine board certification (lower utilization and equivalent yield). CONCLUSION: CT utilization in the ED for suspected PE has steadily risen, whereas diagnostic yields have declined over time. Wide variation in practice is observed at the physician and geographic levels and is explained by several physician and hospital characteristics. Taken together, our findings suggest a substantial inefficiency of chest CT use and substantial opportunities for improvement.

Allergic-like contrast reactions in the ED: Incidence, management, and impact on patient disposition.

PURPOSE: Determine the incidence, management, and impact on patient disposition of allergic-like contrast reactions (ALCR) to intravenous iodinated contrast in the emergency department (ED). METHODS: All ED patients who developed an ALCR following contrast-enhanced CT (CECT) from June 2011-December 2016 were retrospectively identified. Medical records were reviewed and reaction severity, management, and disposition were quantified using descriptive statistics. The total number of consecutive CECTs performed in the ED were available from June 2011-March 2016 and were used to derive ALCR incidence over that time period. RESULTS: A total of 90 patients developed an ALCR during the study period. An ALCR incidence of 0.2% was derived based on 74 ALCRs occurring out of 47,059 consecutive contrast injections in ED patients from June 2011-April 2016. Reaction severity was mild in 63/90 (70%) and moderate in 27/90 (30%) cases; no patient developed a severe reaction by American College of Radiology criteria. The most commonly administered treatments were diphenhydramine in 67/90 (74%), corticosteroid in 24/90 (27%), and epinephrine in 13/90 (14%); symptoms subsequently resolved in all cases. No patient required inpatient admission for contrast reaction alone, and 5 patients were sent to the ED observation unit for post-epinephrine monitoring and subsequently discharged. CONCLUSION: ALCR among ED patients undergoing CECT are rare, generally of mild severity, respond well to pharmacologic management, and do not alter patient disposition in most cases. Familiarity with symptoms, management, and prevention strategies is increasingly relevant to the emergency physician given the ubiquity of CECT.

Monitoring modalities and assessment of fluid status: A practice management guideline from the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma.

BACKGROUND: Fluid administration in critically ill surgical patients must be closely monitored to avoid complications. Resuscitation guided by invasive methods are not consistently associated with improved outcomes. As such, there has been increased use of focused ultrasound and Arterial Pulse Waveform Analysis (APWA) to monitor and aid resuscitation. An assessment of these methods using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework is presented. METHODS: A subsection of the Surgical Critical Care Task Force of the Practice Management Guideline Committee of EAST conducted two systematic reviews to address the use of focused ultrasound and APWA in surgical patients being evaluated for shock. Six population, intervention, comparator, and outcome (PICO) questions were generated. Critical outcomes were prediction of fluid responsiveness, reductions in organ failures or complications and mortality. Forest plots were generated for summary data and GRADE methodology was used to assess for quality of the evidence. Reviews are registered in PROSPERO, the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (42015032402 and 42015032530). RESULTS: Twelve focused ultrasound studies and 20 APWA investigations met inclusion criteria. The appropriateness of focused ultrasound or APWA-based protocols to predict fluid responsiveness varied widely by study groups. Results were mixed in the one focused ultrasound study and 9 APWA studies addressing reductions in organ failures or complications. There was no mortality advantage of either modality versus standard care. Quality of the evidence was considered very low to low across all PICO questions. CONCLUSION: Focused ultrasound and APWA compare favorably to standard methods of evaluation but only in specific clinical settings. Therefore, conditional recommendations are made for the use of these modalities in surgical patients being evaluated for shock. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic Review, level II.

"Choosing Wisely" Imaging Recommendations: Initial Implementation in New England Emergency Departments.

INTRODUCTION: In June 2016, the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) Emergency Quality Network began its Reduce Avoidable Imaging Initiative, designed to "reduce testing and imaging with low risk patients through the implementation of Choosing Wisely recommendations." However, it is unknown whether New England emergency departments (ED) have already implemented evidence-based interventions to improve adherence to ACEP Choosing Wisely recommendations related to imaging after their initial release in 2013. Our objective was to determine this, as well as whether provider-specific audit and feedback for imaging had been implemented in these EDs. METHODS: This survey study was exempt from institutional review board review. In 2015, we mailed surveys to 195 hospital-affiliated EDs in all six New England states to determine whether they had implemented Choosing Wisely-focused interventions in 2014. Initial mailings included cover letters denoting the endorsement of each state's ACEP chapter, and we followed up twice with repeat mailings to non-responders. Data analysis included descriptive statistics and a comparison of state differences using Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: A total of 169/195 (87%) of New England EDs responded, with all individual state response rates >80%. Overall, 101 (60%) of responding EDs had implemented an intervention for at least one Choosing Wisely imaging scenario; 57% reported implementing a specific guideline/policy/clinical pathway and 28% reported implementing a computerized decision support system. The most common interventions were for chest computed tomography (CT) in patients at low risk of pulmonary embolism (47% of EDs) and head CT in patients with minor trauma (45% of EDs). In addition, 40% of EDs had implemented provider-specific audit and feedback, without significant interstate variation (range: 29-55%). CONCLUSION: One year after release of the ACEP Choosing Wisely recommendations, most New England EDs had a guideline/policy/clinical pathway related to at least one of the recommendations. However, only a minority of them were using provider-specific audit and feedback or computerized decision support. Few EDs have embraced the opportunity to implement the multiple evidence-based interventions likely to advance the national goals of improving patient-centered and resource-efficient care.

Medicare Imaging Demonstration: Assessing Attributes of Appropriate Use Criteria and Their Influence on Ordering Behavior.

OBJECTIVE: Persistent concern exists about the variable and possibly inappropriate utilization of high-cost imaging tests. The purpose of this study is to assess the influence of appropriate use criteria attributes on altering ambulatory imaging orders deemed inappropriate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This secondary analysis included Medicare Imaging Demonstration data collected from three health care systems in 2011-2013 via the use of clinical decision support (CDS) during ambulatory imaging order entry. The CDS system captured whether orders were inappropriate per the appropriate use criteria of professional societies and provided advice during the intervention period. For orders deemed inappropriate, we assessed the impact of the availability of alternative test recommendations, conflicts with local best practices, and the strength of evidence for appropriate use criteria on the primary outcome of cancellation or modification of inappropriate orders. Expert review determined conflicts with local best practices for 250 recommendations for abdominal and thoracic CT orders. Strength of evidence was assessed for the 15 most commonly triggered recommendations that were deemed inappropriate. A chi-square test was used for univariate analysis. RESULTS: A total of 1691 of 63,222 imaging test orders (2.7%) were deemed inappropriate during the intervention period; this amount decreased from 364 of 11,675 test orders (3.1%) in the baseline period (p < 0.00001). Of 270 inappropriate recommendations with alternative test recommendations, 28 (10.4%) were modified, compared with four of 1024 inappropriate recommendations without alternatives (0.4%) (p < 0.0001). Seventy-eight of 250 recommendations (31%) conflicted with local best practices, but only six of 69 inappropriate recommendations (9%) conflicted (p < 0.001). No inappropriate recommendations that conflicted with local best practices were modified. All 15 commonly triggered recommendations had an Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine level of evidence of 5 (i.e., expert opinion). CONCLUSION: Orders for imaging tests that were deemed inappropriate were modified infrequently, more often with alternative recommendations present and only for appropriate use criteria consistent with local best practices.

JOURNAL CLUB: Predictors of Provider Response to Clinical Decision Support: Lessons Learned From the Medicare Imaging Demonstration.

OBJECTIVE: The efficacy of imaging clinical decision support (CDS) varies. Our objective was to identify CDS factors contributing to imaging order cancellation or modification. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: This pre-post study was performed across four institutions participating in the Medicare Imaging Demonstration. The intervention was CDS at order entry for selected outpatient imaging procedures. On the basis of the information entered, computerized alerts indicated to providers whether orders were not covered by guidelines, appropriate, of uncertain appropriateness, or inappropriate according to professional society guidelines. Ordering providers could override or accept CDS. We considered actionable alerts to be those that could generate an immediate order behavior change in the ordering physician (i.e., cancellation of inappropriate orders or modification of orders of uncertain appropriateness that had a recommended alternative). Chi-square and logistic regression identified predictors of order cancellation or modification after an alert. RESULTS: A total of 98,894 radiology orders were entered (83,114 after the intervention). Providers ignored 98.9%, modified 1.1%, and cancelled 0.03% of orders in response to alerts. Actionable alerts had a 10 fold higher rate of modification (8.1% vs 0.7%; p < 0.0001) or cancellation (0.2% vs 0.02%; p < 0.0001) orders compared with nonactionable alerts. Orders from institutions with preexisting imaging CDS had a sevenfold lower rate of cancellation or modification than was seen at sites with newly implemented CDS (1.4% vs 0.2%; p < 0.0001). In multivariate analysis, actionable alerts were 12 times more likely to result in order cancellation or modification. Orders at sites with preexisting CDS were 7.7 times less likely to be cancelled or modified (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Using results from the Medicare Imaging Demonstration project, we identified potential factors that were associated with CDS effect on provider imaging ordering; these findings may have implications for future design of such computerized systems.

The 2016 Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference, "Shared Decision Making in the Emergency Department: Development of a Policy-relevant Patient-centered Research Agenda" Diagnostic Testing Breakout Session Report.

Diagnostic testing is an integral component of patient evaluation in the emergency department (ED). Emergency clinicians frequently use diagnostic testing to more confidently exclude "worst-case" diagnoses rather than to determine the most likely etiology for a presenting complaint. Increased utilization of diagnostic testing has not been associated with reductions in disease-related mortality but has led to increased overall healthcare costs and other unintended consequences (e.g., incidental findings requiring further workup, unnecessary exposure to ionizing radiation or potentially nephrotoxic contrast). Shared decision making (SDM) presents an opportunity for clinicians to discuss the benefits and harms associated with diagnostic testing with patients to more closely tailor testing to patient risk. This article introduces the challenges and opportunities associated with incorporating SDM into emergency care by summarizing the conclusions of the diagnostic testing group at the 2016 Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference on SDM. Three primary domains emerged: 1) characteristics of a condition or test appropriate for SDM, 2) critical elements of and potential barriers to SDM discussions on diagnostic testing, and 3) financial aspects of SDM applied to diagnostic testing. The most critical research questions to improve engagement of patients in their acute care diagnostic decisions were determined by consensus.

Diagnostic Imaging Strategies for Occult Hip Fractures: A Decision and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Hip fractures cause significant morbidity and mortality. Determining the optimal diagnostic strategy for the subset of patients with potential occult hip fracture remains challenging. We determined the most cost-effective strategy for the diagnosis of occult hip fractures from the choices of performing only computed tomography (CT), performing only magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), performing CT and if negative performing MRI (MRI-selective strategy) or discharging the patient without advanced imaging. METHODS: We developed a decision-analytic model to compare outcomes and costs of different diagnostic strategies for the diagnosis of an occult hip fracture from a societal perspective. Model inputs were derived from charge data, Medicare reimbursements, and the literature. Strategies with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) below $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained were considered cost-effective. We tested the robustness of our results using probabilistic sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: Compared to a CT strategy, MRI provides an additional 0.05 QALY at an incremental cost of $1,227 and ICER of $25,438/QALY. For facilities without MRI capability, if the cost of transfer is below $1,228, transferring the patient to a MRI-capable facility is the most cost-effective strategy. Above this cost, employing a CT and if negative transfer to a MRI-capable facility strategy was more cost-effective. When the cost of a transfer reached more than $4,039, it became more cost-effective to only obtain a CT. CONCLUSION: MRI is a cost-effective strategy for the diagnosis of an occult hip fracture. For facilities without MRI capability, the most cost-effective strategy depends on the cost of the interfacility transfer.