Transfer patient imaging: secondary interpretation reimbursement.

INTRODUCTION: Trauma center radiologists vary widely in the degree to which they provide secondary interpretations for transferred patients' advanced imaging. A general perception of uncertainty over reimbursement for these exams often results in reluctance to provide routine overreads. The purpose of this study is to assess the difference in reimbursement rates between primary interpretations and secondary interpretations in the emergency department (ED) setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Billing records for the three CT procedures most commonly performed in a single, major level 1 trauma center ED from January 1, 2021, to December 31, 2021, constituted the dataset. Gross charges, total receipts, and payer status were recorded for each exam, and reimbursement rates calculated. RESULTS: In total, 19,754 exams met the inclusion criteria. Primary interpretation was performed on 16,507 (83.6%) exams and secondary interpretation on 3247 (16.4%). For the three CPT codes examined, the average reimbursement percentage was 32.9% for primary interpretation and 43.5% for secondary interpretation. The average reimbursement percentage for commercial payers was 56.5% for primary interpretation and 65.9% for secondary interpretation. The average reimbursement percentage for Health Insurance Exchange payers was 58.5% for primary interpretation and 59.5% for secondary interpretation. The average reimbursement percentage for Medicaid was 24.7% for primary interpretation and 39.9% for secondary interpretation. The average reimbursement percentage for Medicare was 31.1% for primary interpretation and 30.2% for secondary interpretation. The average reimbursement percentage for self-paying patients was 2.3% for primary interpretation and 3.5% for secondary interpretation. CONCLUSION: Regardless of payer status, reimbursement for secondary interpretation of the three most common transfer patients' CT exams is near or greater than that of primary interpretations.

Transfer Patient Imaging: Assessment of the Impact of Discrepancies Identified by Emergency Radiologists.

PURPOSE: Advanced imaging examinations of emergently transferred patients (ETPs) are overread to various degrees by receiving institutions. The practical clinical impact of these second opinions has not been studied in the past. The purpose of this study is to determine if emergency radiology overreads change emergency medicine decision making on ETPs in the emergency department (ED). METHODS: All CT and MRI examinations on patients transferred to a level I trauma center during calendar year 2018 were routinely overread by emergency radiologists and discrepancies with the outside report electronically flagged. All discrepant reports compared with the outside interpretations were reviewed by one of four emergency medicine physicians. Comparing the original and final reports, reviewers identified changes in patient management that could be attributed to the additional information contained in the final report. Changes in patient care were categorized as affecting ED management, disposition, follow-up, or consulting services. RESULTS: Over a 12-month period, 5,834 patients were accepted in transfer. Among 5,631 CT or MRI examinations with outside reports available, 669 examinations (12%) had at least one discrepancy in the corresponding outside report. In 219 examinations (33%), ED management was changed by discrepancies noted on the final report; patient disposition was affected in 84 (13%), outpatient follow-up in 54 (8%), and selection of consulting services in 411 (61%), and ED stay was extended in 544 (81%). Discrepant findings affected decision making in 613 of 669 of examinations (92%). CONCLUSION: Emergency radiology overreading of transferred patients' advanced imaging examinations provided actionable additional information to emergency medicine physicians in the care of 613 of 669 (92%) examinations with discrepant findings. This added value is worth the effort to design workflows to routinely overread CT and MRI examinations of ETPs.

Reducing Antibiotic Prescribing in Primary Care for Respiratory Illness.

BACKGROUND: One-third of outpatient antibiotic prescriptions for pediatric acute respiratory tract infections (ARTIs) are inappropriate. We evaluated a distance learning program's effectiveness for reducing outpatient antibiotic prescribing for ARTI visits. METHODS: In this stepped-wedge clinical trial run from November 2015 to June 2018, we randomly assigned 19 pediatric practices belonging to the Pediatric Research in Office Settings Network or the NorthShore University HealthSystem to 4 wedges. Visits for acute otitis media, bronchitis, pharyngitis, sinusitis, and upper respiratory infection for children 6 months to <11 years old without recent antibiotic use were included. Clinicians received the intervention as 3 program modules containing online tutorials and webinars on evidence-based communication strategies and antibioti c prescribing, booster video vignettes, and individualized antibiotic prescribing feedback reports over 11 months. The primary outcome was overall antibiotic prescribing rates for all ARTI visits. Mixed-effects logistic regression compared prescribing rates during each program module and a postintervention period to a baseline control period. Odds ratios were converted to adjusted rate ratios (aRRs) for interpretability. RESULTS: Among 72 723 ARTI visits by 29 762 patients, intention-to-treat analyses revealed a 7% decrease in the probability of antibiotic prescribing for ARTI overall between the baseline and postintervention periods (aRR 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90-0.96). Second-line antibiotic prescribing decreased for streptococcal pharyngitis (aRR 0.66; 95% CI, 0.50-0.87) and sinusitis (aRR 0.59; 95% CI, 0.44-0.77) but not for acute otitis media (aRR 0.93; 95% CI, 0.83-1.03). Any antibiotic prescribing decreased for viral ARTIs (aRR 0.60; 95% CI, 0.51-0.70). CONCLUSIONS: This program reduced antibiotic prescribing during outpatient ARTI visits; broader dissemination may be beneficial.

Emergency Radiology: An Underappreciated Source of Liability Risk.

PURPOSE: While several studies analyze radiology malpractice lawsuits, none specifically examines the site of service. The purpose of this study is to estimate the relative likelihood of a lawsuit arising from a radiology study performed in emergency (ED), inpatient (IP) and outpatient (OP) settings. METHODS: Referrals from a malpractice review consulting company over a six year period were compared to the 2016 Medicare Part B file and stratified by site of service. The proportion of exams for each site of service was estimated, and using absolute differences in proportions and odds ratios (ORs), differences in the place of service were calculated. RESULTS: The Cleareview cohort contained 25 (17%) IP, 56 (38%) OP, and 68 (46%) ED exams. In 2016, Medicare assigned benefits for 27,009,053 (20%) IP, 84,075,848 (62%) OP and 23,964,794 (18%) ED exams. The ORs (Cleareview: Medicare) of the ED to IP, OP, and IP+OP were 3.07 (95% CI: 1.56-6.03), 4.26 (95% CI: 2.76-6.59), 3.89 (95% CI: 2.60-5.83), respectively. By contrast, the OR for IP:OP between Cleareview and Medicare was not significantly different than 1 (OR: 1.39, 95% CI: 0.68-2.83, P = .38). DISCUSSION: Radiological studies performed in the ED accounted for a disproportionate number of liability claims against radiologists. Further study is warranted to confirm this finding with a more robust data set.

Emergency Radiology: Current Challenges and Preparing for Continued Growth.

The escalation of imaging volumes in the emergency department and intensifying demands for rapid radiology results have increased the demand for emergency radiology. The provision of emergency radiology is essential for nearly all radiology practices, from the smallest to the largest. As our radiology specialty responds to the challenge posed by the triple threat of providing 24-7 coverage, high imaging volumes, and rapid turnaround time, various questions regarding emergency radiology have emerged, including its definition and scope, unique operational demands, quality and safety concerns, impact on physician well-being, and future directions. This article reviews the current challenges confronting the subspecialty of emergency radiology and offers insights into preparing for continued growth.

JOURNAL CLUB: Assessment of Interobserver Variability in the Peer Review Process: Should We Agree to Disagree?

OBJECTIVE: Peer review is an important and necessary part of radiology. There are several options to perform the peer review process. This study examines the reproducibility of peer review by comparing two scoring systems. MATERIALS AND METHODS: American Board of Radiology-certified radiologists from various practice environments and subspecialties were recruited to score deidentified examinations on a web-based PACS with two scoring systems, RADPEER and Cleareview. Quantitative analysis of the scores was performed for interrater agreement. RESULTS: Interobserver variability was high for both the RADPEER and Cleareview scoring systems. The interobserver correlations (kappa values) were 0.17-0.23 for RADPEER and 0.10-0.16 for Cleareview. Interrater correlation was not statistically significantly different when comparing the RADPEER and Cleareview systems (p = 0.07-0.27). The kappa values were low for the Cleareview subscores when we evaluated for missed findings (0.26), satisfaction of search (0.17), and inadequate interpretation of findings (0.12). CONCLUSION: Our study confirms the previous report of low interobserver correlation when using the peer review process. There was low interobserver agreement seen when using both the RADPEER and the Cleareview scoring systems.

The effect of a no-denial policy on imaging utilization.

PURPOSE: Seeking to control advanced diagnostic imaging costs, health insurance plans have instituted broad-based utilization management systems. Most processes ultimately contain denial provisions, meaning that the health plans will refuse to pay for requested studies if performed. The aim of this analysis was to determine whether removal of a denial provision would result in increased utilization of imaging services. METHODS: A major US health plan used a no-denial preauthorization system in all but 4 geographic markets for all CT, MRI, PET, and nuclear cardiac imaging studies, constituting the experimental group. This study consisted of a retrospective review of 247,117 advanced imaging requests 21 months before and 16 months after the elimination of the denial provision in the experimental group. A matched population with no such change in the review process served as the control group. Population-normalized utilization rates were measured for both pooled groups before and after the change. RESULTS: Utilization decreased slightly more in the experimental group than in the control group (-0.10 requests per 1,000 covered lives; 95% confidence interval, -0.20 to 0.00; P = .050) after elimination of the denial provision. The rates of request approval, examination modification, withdrawal, and no consensus after peer-to-peer consultation did not significantly change. CONCLUSIONS: Eliminating denial provisions in utilization management for advanced diagnostic imaging does not result in increased utilization of such imaging.

Evaluating contrast agent waste and costs of weight-based CT contrast bolus protocols using single- or multiple-dose packaging.

OBJECTIVE: Although weight-based contrast agent injection protocols can improve contrast-enhanced CT, one disadvantage is waste caused by differences between the amount of contrast material required for a weight-based algorithm and full-package protocols used with single-use packaging of contrast material. The availability of 500-mL multiple-use packaging of contrast material should facilitate the implementation of weight-based contrast bolus protocols for CT because arbitrary volumes of contrast agent can be loaded without significant waste. Our hypothesis was that multiple-use packaging when used with a weight-based contrast bolus protocol would reduce costs compared with single-use packaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Contrast agent volume loaded and volume actually delivered to 1304 patients undergoing abdominal and pelvic CT were recorded. Model 1 used volume loaded to estimate contrast material cost, model 2 used volume delivered, and model 3 assumed that patients received either 100 or 150 mL from a single-use package, depending on weight. RESULTS: Model 1 required 368 packages of 500 mL contrast material ($23,000). Model 2 required 353 packages of 500 mL contrast material ($22,062.50). Model 3 required 863 and 478 packages of 100 and 150 mL contrast material, respectively ($22,120). CONCLUSION: Cost containment can be realized while improving the quality of contrast opacification by employing 500-mL multiple-use packaging of contrast materials. Care must be taken by the technologists to load only the volume of contrast agent that is needed, or the resulting contrast agent waste will negate the savings and even result in cost increases.

Transfer patient imaging: current status, review of the literature, and the Harborview experience.

Patients transferred for higher levels of care often arrive with medical imaging from the outside facility, with or without accompanying radiology reports. The handling of pretransfer studies by receiving radiologists introduces several concerns regarding resource utilization, medicolegal risk, and technical quality control. The authors review the current status of transfer patient imaging, with an emphasis on the role of the receiving emergency radiologist. Practice solutions developed at the authors' level I trauma center are described.

An evidence base for patient-centered cancer care: a meta-analysis of studies of observed communication between cancer specialists and their patients.

OBJECTIVE: In the context of patients visiting cancer specialists, the objective is to test the association between both patient-centered communication (including Affective Behavior and Participation Behavior) and Instrumental Behavior and patients' post-visit satisfaction with a variety of visit phenomena. METHODS: Meta-analysis of 25 articles representing 10 distinct data sets. RESULTS: Both patient-centered- and instrumental behavior are significantly, positively associated with satisfaction, with patient-centered communication having a relatively stronger association. CONCLUSION: There is an evidence base for the efficacy of patient-centered care. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Cancer specialists need to train to improve their patient-centered communication.