Recommendations for Additional Imaging on Head and Neck Imaging Examinations: Interradiologist Variation and Associated Factors.

BACKGROUND. A paucity of relevant guidelines may lead to pronounced variation among radiologists in issuing recommendations for additional imaging (RAI) for head and neck imaging. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this article was to explore associations of RAI for head and neck imaging examinations with examination, patient, and radiologist factors and to assess the role of individual radiologist-specific behavior in issuing such RAI. METHODS. This retrospective study included 39,200 patients (median age, 58 years; 21,855 women, 17,315 men, 30 with missing sex information) who underwent 39,200 head and neck CT or MRI examinations, interpreted by 61 radiologists, from June 1, 2021, through May 31, 2022. A natural language processing (NLP) tool with manual review of NLP results was used to identify RAI in report impressions. Interradiologist variation in RAI rates was assessed. A generalized mixed-effects model was used to assess associations between RAI and examination, patient, and radiologist factors. RESULTS. A total of 2943 (7.5%) reports contained RAI. Individual radiologist RAI rates ranged from 0.8% to 22.0% (median, 7.1%; IQR, 5.2-10.2%), representing a 27.5-fold difference between minimum and a maximum values and 1.8-fold difference between 25th and 75th percentiles. In multivariable analysis, RAI likelihood was higher for CTA than for CT examinations (OR, 1.32), for examinations that included a trainee in report generation (OR, 1.23), and for patients with self-identified race of Black or African American versus White (OR, 1.25); was lower for male than female patients (OR, 0.90); and was associated with increasing patient age (OR, 1.09 per decade) and inversely associated with radiologist years since training (OR, 0.90 per 5 years). The model accounted for 10.9% of the likelihood of RAI. Of explainable likelihood of RAI, 25.7% was attributable to examination, patient, and radiologist factors; 74.3% was attributable to radiologist-specific behavior. CONCLUSION. Interradiologist variation in RAI rates for head and neck imaging was substantial. RAI appear to be more substantially associated with individual radiologist-specific behavior than with measurable systemic factors. CLINICAL IMPACT. Quality improvement initiatives, incorporating best practices for incidental findings management, may help reduce radiologist preference-sensitive decision-making in issuing RAI for head and neck imaging and associated care variation.

Actionability of Recommendations for Additional Imaging in Head and Neck Radiology.

PURPOSE: The aims of this study were to measure the actionability of recommendations for additional imaging (RAIs) in head and neck CT and MRI, for which there is a near complete absence of best practices or guidelines; to identify the most common recommendations; and to assess radiologist factors associated with actionability. METHODS: All head and neck CT and MRI radiology reports across a multi-institution, multipractice health care system from June 1, 2021, to May 31, 2022, were retrospectively reviewed. The actionability of RAIs was scored using a validated taxonomy. The most common RAIs were identified. Actionability association with radiologist factors (gender, years out of training, fellowship training, practice type) and with trainees was measured using a mixed-effects model. RESULTS: Two hundred nine radiologists generated 60,543 reports, of which 7.2% (n = 4,382) contained RAIs. Only 3.9% of RAIs (170 of 4,382) were actionable. More than 60% of RAIs were for eight examinations: thyroid ultrasound (14.1%), neck CT (12.6%), brain MRI (6.9%), chest CT (6.5%), neck CT angiography (5.5%), temporal bone CT (5.3%), temporal bone MRI (5.2%), and pituitary MRI (4.6%). Radiologists >23 years out of training (odds ratio, 0.39; 95% confidence interval, 0.15-1.02; P = .05) and community radiologists (odds ratio, 0.53; 95% confidence interval, 0.22-1.31; P = .17) had substantially lower estimated odds of making actionable RAIs than radiologists <7 years out of training and academic radiologists, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The studied radiologists rarely made actionable RAIs, which makes it difficult to identify and track clinically necessary RAIs to timely performance. Multifaceted quality improvement initiatives including peer comparisons, clinical decision support at the time of reporting, and the development of evidence-based best practices, may help improve tracking and timely performance of clinically necessary RAIs.

Computed Tomography Pulmonary Angiography Utilization in the Emergency Department During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

PURPOSE: To determine if computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) ordering increased significantly during the COVID-19 pandemic in an emergency department (ED) setting; if positive findings for pulmonary embolism (PE) increased to the same degree; and whether COVID-positive patients have a higher incidence of PE than COVID-negative patients at ED presentation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of CTPA performed in our ED between June and December in 2019 and 2020. We collected data on patient demographics, symptoms, COVID-19 status, lab and imaging results, and risk factors for PE. We used a Wilcoxon rank sum to analyze quantitative variables and χ2 or Fisher test for categorical variables. We used logistic regression to identify predictive factors for PE. RESULTS: CTPA ordering increased from 432 studies in 2019 to 699 in 2020 (+61.8%, P<0.0001), but detection rates for PE remained stable (11.3% vs. 10.2%, P=0.61). In 2020, 10 of 91 COVID-positive patients undergoing CTPA had positive studies. On regression analysis, COVID-19 was not a significant predictor of PE at ED presentation (odds ratio 1.029, 95% confidence interval: 0.959-1.103). COVID-positive patients were more likely to have nondiagnostic imaging (7.7% vs. 2.5% [COVID-negative] and 0.8% [not tested], P=0.007). CONCLUSIONS: While CTPA ordering increased significantly during the pandemic, our positivity rate remained stable, suggesting that this increase was appropriate. COVID-positive patients who underwent CTPA in the ED did not have a higher incidence of PE than other patients. Clinicians should use clinical judgment to weigh the likelihood of PE against the risk of nondiagnostic results when determining whether to expose COVID-positive patients to high-dose radiation and contrast with CTPA on initial presentation.

Surgeon Use of Shared Decision-making for Older Adults Considering Major Surgery: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Because major surgery carries significant risks for older adults with comorbid conditions, shared decision-making is recommended to ensure patients receive care consistent with their goals. However, it is unknown how often shared decision-making is used for these patients. Objective: To describe the use of shared decision-making during discussions about major surgery with older adults. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study is a secondary analysis of conversations audio recorded during a randomized clinical trial of a question prompt list. Data were collected from June 1, 2016, to November 31, 2018, from 43 surgeons and 446 patients 60 years or older with at least 1 comorbidity at outpatient surgical clinics at 5 academic centers. Interventions: Patients received a question prompt list brochure that contained questions they could ask a surgeon. Main Outcomes and Measures: The 5-domain Observing Patient Involvement in Decision-making (OPTION5) score (range, 0-100, with higher scores indicating greater shared decision-making) was used to measure shared decision-making. Results: A total of 378 surgical consultations were analyzed (mean [SD] patient age, 71.9 [7.2] years; 206 [55%] male; 312 [83%] White). The mean (SD) OPTION5 score was 34.7 (20.6) and was not affected by the intervention. The mean (SD) score in the group receiving the question prompt list was 36.7 (21.2); in the control group, the mean (SD) score was 32.9 (19.9) (effect estimate, 3.80; 95% CI, -0.30 to 8.00; P = .07). Individual surgeon use of shared decision-making varied greatly, with a lowest median score of 10 (IQR, 10-20) to a high of 65 (IQR, 55-80). Lower-performing surgeons had little variation in OPTION5 scores, whereas high-performing surgeons had wide variation. Use of shared decision-making increased when surgeons appeared reluctant to operate (effect estimate, 7.40; 95% CI, 2.60-12.20; P = .003). Although longer conversations were associated with slightly higher OPTION5 scores (effect estimate, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.52-0.88; P < .001), 57% of high-scoring transcripts were 26 minutes long or less. On multivariable analysis, patient age and gender, patient education, surgeon age, and surgeon gender were not significantly associated with OPTION5 scores. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that although shared decision-making is important to support the preferences of older adults considering major surgery, surgeon use of shared decision-making is highly variable. Skillful shared decision-making can be done in less than 30 minutes; however, surgeons who engage in high-scoring shared decision-making are more likely to do so when surgical intervention is less obviously beneficial for the patient. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02623335.