Appropriateness and imaging outcomes of ultrasound, CT, and MR in the emergency department: a retrospective analysis from an urban academic center.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the appropriateness and outcomes of ultrasound (US), computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance (MR) orders in the ED. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed consecutive US, CT, and MR orders for adult ED patients at a tertiary care urban academic center from January to March 2019. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria (ACRAC) guidelines were primarily used to classify imaging orders as "appropriate" or "inappropriate". Two radiologists in consensus judged specific clinical scenarios that were unavailable in the ACRAC. Final imaging reports were compared with the initial clinical suspicion for imaging and categorized into "normal", "compatible with initial diagnosis", "alternative diagnosis", or "inconclusive". The sample was powered to show a prevalence of inappropriate orders of 30% with a margin of error of 5%. RESULTS: The rate of inappropriate orders was 59.4% for US, 29.1% for CT, and 33.3% for MR. The most commonly imaged systems for each modality were neuro (130/330) and gastrointestinal (95/330) for CT, genitourinary (132/330) and gastrointestinal (121/330) for US, neuro (273/330) and gastrointestinal (37/330) for MR. Compared to inappropriately ordered tests, the final reports of appropriate orders were nearly three times more likely to demonstrate findings compatible with the initial diagnosis for all modalities: US (45.5 vs. 14.3%, p < 0.001), CT (46.6 vs. 14.6%, p < 0.001), and MR (56.3 vs. 21.8%, p < 0.001). Inappropriate orders were more likely to show no abnormalities compared to appropriate orders: US (65.8 vs. 38.8%, p < 0.001), CT (62.5 vs. 34.2%, p < 0.001), and MR (61.8 vs. 38.7%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The prevalence of inappropriate imaging orders in the ED was 59.4% for US, 29.1% for CT, and 33.3% for MR. Appropriately ordered imaging was three times more likely to yield findings compatible with the initial diagnosis across all modalities.

Inappropriate CT examinations: how much, who and where? Insights from a clinical decision support system (CDSS) analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the appropriateness of Computed Tomography (CT) examinations, using the ESR-iGuide. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted in 2022 in a medium-sized acute care teaching hospital. A total of 278 consecutive cases of CT referral were included. For each imaging referral, the ESR-iGuide provided an appropriateness score using a scale of 1-9 and the Relative Radiation Level using a scale of 0-5. These were then compared with the appropriateness score and the radiation level of the recommended ESR-iGuide exam. DATA ANALYSIS: Pearson's chi-square test or Fisher exact test was used to explore the correlation between ESR-iGuide appropriateness level and physician, patients, and shift characteristics. A stepwise logistic regression model was used to capture the contribution of each of these factors. RESULTS: Most of exams performed were CT head (63.67%) or CT abdominal pelvis (23.74%). Seventy percent of the actual imaging referrals resulted in an ESR-iGuide score corresponding to "usually appropriate." The mean radiation level for actual exam was 3.2 ± 0.45 compared with 2.16 ± 1.56 for the recommended exam. When using a stepwise logistic regression for modeling the probability of non-appropriate score, both physician specialty and status were significant (p = 0.0011, p = 0.0192 respectively). Non-surgical and specialist physicians were more likely to order inappropriate exams than surgical physicians. CONCLUSIONS: ESR-iGuide software indicates a substantial rate of inappropriate exams of CT head and CT abdominal-pelvis and unnecessary radiation exposure mainly in the ED department. Inappropriate exams were found to be related to physicians' specialty and seniority. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: These findings underscore the urgent need for improved imaging referral practices to ensure appropriate healthcare delivery and effective resource management. Additionally, they highlight the potential benefits and necessity of integrating CDSS as a standard medical practice. By implementing CDSS, healthcare providers can make more informed decisions, leading to enhanced patient care, optimized resource allocation, and improved overall healthcare outcomes. KEY POINTS: • The overall mean of appropriateness for the actual exam according to the ESR-iGuide was 6.62 ± 2.69 on a scale of 0-9. • Seventy percent of the actual imaging referrals resulted in an ESR-iGuide score corresponding to "usually appropriate." • Inappropriate examination is related to both the specialty of the physician who requested the exam and the seniority status of the physician.

Appropriateness of radiographic imaging ordered by emergency physicians: a knowledge-based survey.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the knowledge of physicians working in the emergency department in choosing appropriate diagnostic imaging in different clinical scenarios. Methods: The cross-sectional study was conducted at the Emergency Department of the Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi, from January 3 to July 2, 2018, and comprised registered medical officers, residents, and consultants of either gender involved in emergency care decision-making. Data was collected using a structured questionnaire that had 10 clinical scenarios based on the American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria guidelines. Data was analysed using SPSS 17. RESULTS: Of the 82 participants, 50(61%) were males and 32(39%) were females. The overall mean age was 34.06±6.42 years. Of the total, 50(61%) subjects had appropriate knowledge regarding imaging. The overall mean number of correct responses was 6.90±1.20. Those belonging to the Emergency Medicine specialty had significantly higher odds of having appropriate knowledge compared to participants belonging to other specialties when adjusted for age, gender, position of practice and years of Emergency Medicine training (Odds ratio: 4.73; 95% confidence interval: 1.07-20.91). CONCLUSIONS: Physicians belonging to the Emergency Medicine specialty were more likely to have adequate knowledge regarding imaging appropriateness compared to other specialties.

Clinical decision support system recommendations: how often do radiologists and clinicians accept them?

OBJECTIVE: To assess the acceptance and reliability of clinical decision support system (CDSS) imaging referral scores (ESR iGuide). METHODS: A pilot study was conducted in a tertiary hospital. Four different experts were invited to rate 40 simulated clinical cases on a 5-level scale, for the level of agreement with the ESR iGuide's recommended procedures. In cases of disagreement, physicians were asked to indicate the reason. Descriptive measures were calculated for the level of agreement. We also explored the degree of agreement between four different specialists, and examined the cases in which clinicians disagreed with ESR iGuide best practice recommendations. RESULTS: The mean rating of the four experts for the 40 clinical simulated cases was 4.17 ± 0.65, median 4.25 (on a scale of 1-5). All four raters totally agreed with the system recommendation in 75% of cases. No significant relationship was found between the degree of agreement and the number of indications and the patient's age or gender. In an optimistic scenario, using a binary agree/disagree variable, the Overall Percentage Agreement for the rating of the 40 simulated cases between the four experts was 77.28%. There were a total of 20 disagreements out of 160 cases with the ESR iGuide, of which 7 were among the two radiologists. CONCLUSIONS: CDSS can be an effective tool for guiding the selection of appropriate imaging examinations, thus cutting costs due to unnecessary imaging scans. Since this is a pilot study, further research on a larger scale, preferably at national level, is required. KEY POINTS: • The average of the mean rating of the four experts was 4.17 ± 0.65, median 4.25, on a scale of 1-5 where 5 represents total agreement with the CDSS tool. • In an optimistic scenario, using a binary agree/disagree variable, the Overall Percentage Agreement between the four experts was 77.28%. • Radiologists had fewer disagreements with the recommendations of the CDSS tool than other physicians, indicating a better fit of the support system to radiology experts' perspective.

Clinical language search algorithm from free-text: facilitating appropriate imaging.

BACKGROUND: The comprehensiveness and maintenance of the American College of Radiology (ACR) Appropriateness Criteria (AC) makes it a unique resource for evidence-based clinical imaging decision support, but it is underutilized by clinicians. To facilitate the use of imaging recommendations, we develop a natural language processing (NLP) search algorithm that automatically matches clinical indications that physicians write into imaging orders to appropriate AC imaging recommendations. METHODS: We apply a hybrid model of semantic similarity from a sent2vec model trained on 223 million scientific sentences, combined with term frequency inverse document frequency features. AC documents are ranked based on their embeddings' cosine distance to query. For model testing, we compiled a dataset of simulated simple and complex indications for each AC document (n = 410) and another with clinical indications from randomly sampled radiology reports (n = 100). We compare our algorithm to a custom google search engine. RESULTS: On the simulated indications, our algorithm ranked ground truth documents as top 3 for 98% of simple queries and 85% of complex queries. Similarly, on the randomly sampled radiology report dataset, the algorithm ranked 86% of indications with a single match as top 3. Vague and distracting phrases present in the free-text indications were main sources of errors. Our algorithm provides more relevant results than a custom Google search engine, especially for complex queries. CONCLUSIONS: We have developed and evaluated an NLP algorithm that matches clinical indications to appropriate AC guidelines. This approach can be integrated into imaging ordering systems for automated access to guidelines.

Prospective cost implications with a clinical decision support system for pediatric emergency head computed tomography.

BACKGROUND: Unnecessary imaging is a potential cost driver in the United States health care system. OBJECTIVE: Using a clinical decision support tool, we determined the percentage of low-utility non-contrast head computed tomography (CT) examinations on emergency patients and calculated the prospective cost implications of providing low-value imaging using time-driven activity-based costing at an academic quaternary pediatric hospital. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A clinical decision support tool for imaging, CareSelect (National Decision Support Co., Madison, WI), was integrated in silent mode into the electronic health record from September 2018 through August 2019. Each non-contrast head CT order received a score from the clinical decision support tool based on the American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria. Descriptive statistics for all levels of appropriateness scores were compiled with an emphasis on low-utility exams. A micro-costing assessment was conducted using time-driven activity-based costing on head CT without contrast examinations. RESULTS: Within the 11-month time period, 3,186 head CT examinations without contrast were ordered for emergency center patients. Among these orders, 28% (896/3,186) were classified as low-utility studies. The base case CT pathway time was 43 min and base case total cost was $193.35. The base case opportunity cost of these low-utility exams extrapolated annually amounts to $188,902 for our institution. CONCLUSION: Silent mode implementation of a clinical decision support tool resulted in 28% of head CT non-contrast exams on emergency patients being graded as low-utility studies. Prospective cost implications resulted in an annual base case cost of $188,902 to Texas Children's Hospital.

Improved Appropriateness of Advanced Diagnostic Imaging After Implementation of Clinical Decision Support Mechanism.

The Protecting Access to Medicare Act (PAMA) mandates clinical decision support mechanism (CDSM) consultation for all advanced imaging. There are a growing number of studies examining the association of CDSM use with imaging appropriateness, but a paucity of multicenter data. This observational study evaluates the association between changes in advanced imaging appropriateness scores with increasing provider exposure to CDSM. Each provider's first 200 consecutive anonymized requisitions for advanced imaging (CT, MRI, ultrasound, nuclear medicine) using a single CDSM (CareSelect, Change Healthcare) between January 1, 2017 and December 31, 2019 were collected from 288 US institutions. Changes in imaging requisition proportions among four appropriateness categories ("usually appropriate" [green], "may be appropriate" [yellow], "usually not appropriate" [red], and unmapped [gray]) were evaluated in relation to the chronological order of the requisition for each provider and total provider exposure to CDSM using logistic regression fits and Wald tests. The number of providers and requisitions included was 244,158 and 7,345,437, respectively. For 10,123 providers with ≥ 200 requisitions (2,024,600 total requisitions), the fraction of green, yellow, and red requisitions among the last 10 requisitions changed by +3.0% (95% confidence interval +2.6% to +3.4%), -0.8% (95% CI -0.5% to -1.1%), and -3.0% (95% CI 3.3% to -2.7%) in comparison with the first 10, respectively. Providers with > 190 requisitions had 8.5% (95% CI 6.3% to 10.7%) more green requisitions, 2.3% (0.7% to 3.9%) fewer yellow requisitions, and 0.5% (95% CI -1.0% to 2.0%) fewer red (not statistically significant) requisitions relative to providers with ≤ 10 requisitions. Increasing provider exposure to CDSM is associated with improved appropriateness scores for advanced imaging requisitions.

Application of the ESR iGuide clinical decision support system to the imaging pathway of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and cholangiocarcinoma: preliminary findings.

BACKGROUND: Our purpose was to assess the performance of ESR iGuide for assisting the selection of the most appropriate imaging tests based on clinical signs and symptoms in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) or cholangiocarcinoma (CC). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 113 patients with a final diagnosis of HCC or CC. Data from a cohort of 40 patients with a reported clinical history suggestive for either disease, who had undergone at least their first imaging test related to their condition at the same Institution, were entered into ESR iGuide. The appropriateness level of the diagnostic tests suggested by ESR iGuide was compared with that of the tests actually performed. RESULTS: All patients underwent several imaging examinations, ranging from a minimum of 1 to a maximum of 4, for a total of 98 diagnostic procedures. Of these, 79.6% (78/98) were considered "usually appropriate" by ESR iGuide, 11.2% (11/98) were designated as "may be appropriate", and 9.2% (9/98) were not even suggested. Given a total estimated cost of €14,016 for the 98 examinations performed within the regional (BLINDED) healthcare system, the usage of ESR iGuide would have allowed saving €3033 (21.6%) due to inappropriate testing. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with HCC or CC, ESR iGuide can be effective in guiding the selection of the appropriate imaging examinations and cutting costs due to inappropriate testing.

Incidental Renal Lesions on Lumbar Spine MRI: Who Needs Follow-Up?

OBJECTIVE: Incidentally discovered renal lesions on lumbar spine MRI are a common occurrence. Many follow-up recommendations are generated by radiologists encountering renal lesions to help characterize the finding as a benign cyst or a more complex, potentially malignant lesion. We hypothesized that analysis of T2-weighted imaging features of incidentally discovered renal lesions could reliably distinguish complex renal lesions from simple cysts. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two independent readers retrospectively evaluated 149 renal lesions identified on lumbar spine MRI examinations. Presence or absence of a complex renal lesion was determined using T2-weighted imaging only. Using dedicated renal cross-sectional imaging examinations as the reference standard, statistical analysis was performed to determine the accuracy of lumbar spine MRI in predicting a complex and potentially neoplastic renal lesion. RESULTS: Of 149 renal lesions, 115 were simple cysts, and 34 were complex renal lesions (20 Bosniak II cysts, nine renal cell carcinomas, three Bosniak IIF cysts, and two angiomyolipomas). Lumbar spine MRI readers identified 72 lesions as simple cysts and 77 lesions as complex renal lesions. Reader sensitivity for detection of a complex renal lesion on lumbar spine MRI was 94% (95% CI, 80-99%); specificity, 63% (95% CI, 53-72%); positive predictive value, 43% (95% CI, 37-49%); and negative predictive value, 97% (95% CI, 90-99%). Readers correctly identified all neoplastic and potentially neoplastic lesions (≥ Bosniak IIF). Interreader agreement was excellent (κ = 0.84). CONCLUSION: Follow-up imaging may not be required in all cases of incidentally discovered renal lesions on lumbar spine MRI. Analysis of T2-weighted imaging alone appears to reliably rule out neoplastic and potentially neoplastic complex renal lesions.

Clinical decision support: the role of ACR Appropriateness Criteria.

Clinical decision support is a way to decrease inappropriate imaging exams and promote judicious use of imaging resources. The adoption of clinical decision support will be incentivized by requiring the use of approved mechanisms to qualify for Medicare reimbursement starting in January 2020. Insurance providers base their reimbursement policies on Medicare, so clinical decision support could soon become relevant to pediatric imaging. We present the process behind the American College of Radiology (ACR) Appropriateness Criteria (a set of appropriate use criteria developed by the ACR) that will form the basis for software that can be used to fulfill the criteria for clinical decision support. For most organizations, this software is expected to be the easiest way to implement clinical decision support. Clinical decision support will affect how providers order imaging exams. This article should help readers understand how clinical decision support is expected to change the practice of the ordering providers, how the ACR Appropriateness Criteria are related to clinical decision support and how the ACR Appropriateness Criteria are developed. This will help the interpreting radiologist better communicate with the referring clinician, including informing the latter about how the clinical decision support software is making decisions.

Utility of Pelvic CT for Surveillance of T2-T4 Renal Cell Carcinoma After Nephrectomy With Curative Intent.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether routine pelvic imaging is necessary during postoperative surveillance of pathologic T2-T4 renal cell carcinoma after nephrectomy for curative intent. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective single-institution cohort study with 603 subjects undergoing partial or radical nephrectomy of T2-T4 renal cell carcinoma with curative intent was conducted from January 1, 2000, through December 31, 2015. Clinical and imaging (CT or MRI) follow-up findings were evaluated in a prospectively maintained registry to determine the timing and location of recurrent and metastatic disease. The primary outcome was the proportion of subjects with positive or equivocal findings in the pelvis and negative findings in the chest and abdomen. Binomial CIs were calculated and compared with a prespecified minimum detection threshold of 5%. RESULTS: The T category distribution was as follows: T2 (28.9% [174/603]), T3 (70.3% [424/603]), and T4 (0.8% [5/603]). Most (81.8% [493/603]) of the patients underwent radical nephrectomy, and 27.0% (163/603) had recurrence or metastasis (mean time to first recurrence, 600 ± 695 days). Pelvic imaging findings were negative in 97.0% (585/603) of cases. Four subjects (0.7% [95% CI, 0.2-1.7%]) had isolated positive findings in the pelvis (p < 0.0001 vs the 5% threshold). Two (0.3% overall [95% CI, 0.04-1.1%]) of these positive findings were in subjects who did not have symptoms. CONCLUSION: Routine pelvic imaging of patients undergoing surveillance for asymptomatic T2-T4 renal cell carcinoma after nephrectomy performed with curative intent has minimal value and probably should not be performed.

A Day in the Life of MRI: The Variety and Appropriateness of Exams Being Performed in Canada.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to determine the volumes and types of magnetic resonance imaging exams being performed across Canada, common indications for the exams, and exam appropriateness using multiple evaluation tools. METHODS: Thirteen academic medical institutions across Canada participated. Data were obtained relating to a single common day, October 1, 2014. Patient demographics, type by anatomic region and indication for imaging were analysed. Each exam was assessed for appropriateness via the Canadian Association of Radiologists Referral Guidelines and the American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria. The Alberta and Saskatchewan spine screening forms and the Alberta knee screening form were also used where applicable. The proportion of exams that were unscorable, appropriate, and inappropriate was determined. Exam-level results were compared between the 2 main evaluation tools. RESULTS: Data were obtained for 1087 relevant exams. There were 591 women and 460 men. 36 requisitions did not indicate the patient's sex. Brain exams were the most common, comprising 32.5% of the sample. Cancer was the most common indication. Overall, 87.0%-87.4% of the MR exams performed were appropriate; 6.6%-12.6% were inappropriate, based on the 2 main evaluation tools. Results differed by anatomic region; spine exams had the highest proportion, with nearly one-third of exams deemed inappropriate. CONCLUSION: Variations by anatomic region indicate that focused exam request evaluation or screening methods could substantially reduce inappropriate imaging.

Systemic Error in Radiology.

OBJECTIVE: Interpretive errors in diagnostic imaging result in significant patient morbidity and mortality, but the importance of errors and process failures in the imaging cycle other than during image interpretation is underappreciated. In this article, we describe these errors and potential solutions, providing a framework to improve patient safety and understand the changing roles of radiologists beyond image interpretation. CONCLUSION: For comprehensive improvements to health care delivery, other failures in the cycle besides diagnostic interpretive error-such as ordering inappropriate studies, PACS failures, and a lack of accurate clinician contact information (with resultant communication failure)-should be recognized as contributors to patient harm because they lead to wasted resources and delayed care. By taking ownership of the entire imaging cycle, radiologists can increase their net worth to patient care and cement their roles as experts in the effective, evidence-based use of imaging technologies.

MR angiography can guide ED management of suspected acute aortic dissection.

BACKGROUND: Aortic dissection is typically evaluated with computed tomography angiography (CTA). However, the feasibility of using magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) in the ED is unclear. This study examined the indications and outcomes of MRA in suspected aortic dissection evaluation in the ED. METHODS: An IRB approved review identified patients who underwent MRA in the ED for acute thoracic aortic dissection from January 2010 to June 2016. Demographics, clinical assessment, CTA contraindications, outcomes, and ED disposition were analyzed. RESULTS: 50 MRAs were ordered for suspected thoracic aortic dissection. 21 (42%) for iodinated contrast allergy, 21 (42%) for renal insufficiency, 2 (4%) due to both, 2 (4%) to spare ionizing radiation, 2 (4%) for further work-up after CTA, and 2 (4%) due to prior contrast enhanced CT within 24h. Median ED arrival to MRA completion time was 311min. 42 studies were fully diagnostic; 7 were limited. One patient could not tolerate the examination. 49 MRAs were completed: 2 (4%) patients had acute dissection on MRA and 47 (96%) had negative exams. 17 (35%) received gadolinium. 18 (37%) patients were discharged home from the ED with a median length of stay of 643min. 2 (4%) were admitted for acute dissection seen on MRA and 29 (59%) for further evaluation. CONCLUSION: MRA has a clear role in the evaluation for acute thoracic aortic dissection in the ED in patients with contraindications to CTA, and can guide management and facilitate safe discharge to home.

Imaging trends in suspected appendicitis-a Canadian perspective.

PURPOSE: The purpose of our study was to assess trends in the imaging of suspected appendicitis in adult patients in emergency departments of academic centers in Canada. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to all 17 academic centers in Canada to be completed by a radiologist who works in emergency radiology. The questionnaires were sent and collected over a period of 4 months from October 2015 to February 2016. RESULTS: Sixteen centers (94%) responded to the questionnaire. Eleven respondents (73%) use IV contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) as the imaging modality of choice for all patients with suspected appendicitis. Thirteen respondents (81%) use ultrasound as the first modality of choice in imaging pregnant patients with suspected appendicitis. Eleven respondents (69%) use ultrasound (US) as the first modality of choice in patients younger than 40 years of age. Ten respondents (67%) use ultrasound as the first imaging modality in female patients younger than 40 years of age. When CT is used, 81% use non-focused CT of the abdomen and pelvis, and 44% of centers use oral contrast. Thirteen centers (81%) have ultrasound available 24 h a day/7 days a week. At 12 centers (75%), ultrasound is performed by ultrasound technologists. Four centers (40%) perform magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in suspected appendicitis in adult patients at the discretion of the attending radiologist. Eleven centers (69%) have MRI available 24/7. All 16 centers (100%) use unenhanced MRI. CONCLUSIONS: Various imaging modalities are available for the work-up of suspected appendicitis. Although there are North American societal guidelines and recommendations regarding the appropriateness of the multiple imaging modalities, significant heterogeneity in the first-line modalities exist, which vary depending on the patient demographics and resource availability. Imaging trends in the use of the first-line modalities should be considered in order to plan for the availability of the imaging examinations and to consider plans for an imaging algorithm to permit standardization across multiple centers. While this study examined the imaging trends specifically in Canada, there are implications to other countries seeking to streamline imaging protocols and determining appropriateness of the first-line imaging modalities.

Is Value-Driven Health Care an Unfunded Mandate for Radiologists?

OBJECTIVE: The goals of the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) can be summed up by the Triple Aim, as defined by the Institute for Healthcare Improvement: Improve population health, optimize the patient experience, and reduce the costs of care. CONCLUSION: Despite recent reimbursement reductions, radiologists have increasing opportunities to participate in value-based payment programs and should leverage those opportunities.

Incidental findings in emergency imaging: frequency, recommendations, and compliance with consensus guidelines.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the frequency of incidental findings (IFs) in emergency department (ED) imaging reports and evaluate the adherence of imaging recommendations to consensus societal guidelines for IFs. A retrospective review of consecutive ED computed tomography (CT) and ultrasonography (US) reports from two university-affiliated EDs over a 2-month period was performed. Each imaging report was reviewed in its entirety, and incidental findings were documented along with recommendations for additional imaging. Imaging recommendations were compared to published societal guidelines from the American College of Radiology (ACR) and Fleischner Society. Three thousand one hundred thirty-one total cases consisting of 1967 CTs and 1164 US contained 514 incidental findings (16.4 %), with 329 CT IFs (64 %) and 185 US IFs (36 %). The ovary was the most common organ for an IF (n = 214, 42 %). Of all IFs, 347 (67.5 %) recommendations were concordant with societal guidelines and 167 (32.5 %) were discordant. 39.8 % of CT recommendations were discordant, while 19.5 % of US recommendations were discordant (p < 0.0001). Incidental findings are commonly encountered in the emergent setting. Variable adherence to societal guidelines is noted. Targeted radiologist education and technological solutions may decrease rates of discordance.

Appropriateness of knee MRI prescriptions: clinical, economic and technical issues.

OBJECTIVES: Many studies show that a large portion of medical prescriptions for diagnostic examinations may be not useful for patient's management or unnecessary. Rapid technological advancement has made it possible for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to be increasingly used all over the world, particularly for musculoskeletal disorders. The aim of this study was to assess the appropriateness of the knee MRI prescriptions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A panel of experts found standard clinical practice guidelines in the management of knee disorders. Secondly, the finalized set of guidelines chosen was compared with the data of 400 patients who underwent previous knee MRIs, which were then reported in a specific questionnaire prepared by the authors. The rate of appropriateness of knee MRI prescriptions was then calculated. RESULTS: Almost 21% of prescriptions were totally inappropriate, 18.8% were uncertain, and 60.2% could be considered totally appropriate. The most frequent prescription indication was for meniscal disorders that account for 26.8% of the total indications. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate that approximately 40% of the total prescriptions were totally inappropriate or uncertain and that most of these were made by general practitioners. In light of these results, the economic impact of inappropriate prescriptions on the Italian healthcare system has to be seriously considered.

JOURNAL CLUB: Radiologists' Perceptions of Computerized Decision Support: A Focus Group Study From the Medicare Imaging Demonstration Project.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to discern radiologists' perceptions regarding the implementation of a decision support system intervention as part of the Medicare Imaging Demonstration project and the effect of decision support on radiologists' interactions with ordering clinicians, their radiology work flow, and appropriateness of advanced imaging. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A focus group study was conducted with a diverse sample of radiologists involved in interpreting advanced imaging studies at Medicare Imaging Demonstration project sites. A semistructured moderator guide was used, and all focus group discussions were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Qualitative data analysis software was used to code thematic content and identify representative segments of text. Participating radiologists also completed an accompanying survey designed to supplement focus group discussions. RESULTS: Twenty-six radiologists participated in four focus group discussions. The following major themes related to the radiologists' perceptions after decision support implementation were identified: no substantial change in radiologists' interactions with referring clinicians; no substantial change in radiologist work flow, including protocol-writing time; and no perceived increase in imaging appropriateness. Radiologists provided suggestions for improvements in the decision support system, including increasing the usability of clinical data captured, and expressed a desire to have greater involvement in future development and implementation efforts. CONCLUSION: Overall, radiologists from health care systems involved in the Medicare Imaging Demonstration did not perceive that decision support had a substantial effect, either positive or negative, on their professional roles and responsibilities. Radiologists expressed a desire to improve efficiencies and quality of care by having greater involvement in future efforts.

Evaluation of Posttreatment Follow-Up of Patients With Prostate Cancer Relative to the American College of Radiology's Appropriateness Criteria.

OBJECTIVE: The American College of Radiology (ACR) Appropriateness Criteria panel has recommended that patients with prostate cancer who have received treatment undergo imaging only after suspected cancer recurrence. We examined whether local physicians followed this recommendation and what types of imaging examinations were ordered in a cohort of patients with local prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Rochester Epidemiology Project, a research consortium that collects, links, and stores medical record information of Olmsted County, Minnesota, residents, was used to capture the complete medical history of treated patients with prostate cancer from 2000 through 2011. Clinical information and imaging examinations performed were retrieved by chart review. Suspected recurrence was defined as treatment-specific prostate-specific antigen level elevations, bone pain, or abnormal digital rectal examination findings. RESULTS: Of the 670 treated patients with prostate cancer who were included in the final analysis, 129 (19%) underwent posttreatment imaging. After excluding imaging related to retreatment or another cancer, 13 patients (i.e., 2% of the entire cohort and 10% of imaged patients) underwent imaging in the absence of suspected recurrence. A total of 90 patients (70% of imaged patients) underwent imaging after suspected recurrence. Of these 90 patients, 62 (69%) underwent a bone scan as their first imaging modality either alone or in combination with other imaging modalities. Of the providers who ordered a bone scan first, 27% were urologists, 23% were radiation oncologists, and 24% were primary care physicians. CONCLUSION: Most patients in this study did not undergo imaging in the absence of suspected recurrence. Various types of imaging examinations were ordered for patients with suspected recurrence.