Effects of Physician Experience, Specialty Training, and Self-referral on Inappropriate Diagnostic Imaging

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.

Does clinical decision support system promote expert consensus for appropriate imaging referrals? Chest-abdominal-pelvis CT as a case study

OBJECTIVES

We assessed the appropriateness of chest-abdominal-pelvis (CAP) CT scan use in the Emergency Department (ED), based on expert physicians and the ESR iGuide, a clinical decision support system (CDSS).

METHODS

A retrospective cross-study was conducted. We included 100 cases of CAP-CT scans ordered at the ED. Four experts rated the appropriateness of the cases on a 7-point scale, before and after using the decision support tool.

RESULTS

Before using the ESR iGuide the overall mean rating of the experts was 5.2 ± 1.066, and it increased slightly after using the system (5.85 ± 0.911 (p < 0.01)). Using a threshold of 5 (on a 7-level scale), the experts considered only 63% of the tests appropriate before using the ESR iGuide. The number increased to 89% after consultation with the system. The degree of overall agreement among the experts was 0.388 before ESR iGuide consultation and 0.572 after consultation. According to the ESR iGuide, for 85% of the cases, CAP CT was not a recommended option (score 0). Abdominal-Pelvis CT was "usually appropriate" for 65 out of the 85 (76%) cases (score 7-9). 9% of the cases did not require CT as first exam modality.

CONCLUSIONS

According to both the experts and the ESR iGuide, inappropriate testing was prevalent, in terms of both frequency of the scans and also inappropriately chosen body regions. These findings raise the need for unified workflows that might be achieved using a CDSS. Further studies are needed to investigate the CDSS contribution to the informed decision-making and increased uniformity among different expert physicians when ordering the appropriate test.