Harnessing the Electronic Medical Record to Improve the Utilization of Ultrasound Screening for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms

Making Sense of the Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Clinical Practice Guidelines: What Clinicians Need to Know

Standards of care summarized in clinical practice guidelines for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) offer clinicians a streamlined diagnostic and management approach based on the best available evidence. These recommendations have changed a great deal in recent years; today, there is a clear focus on screening for the early identification and risk stratification of patients at high risk of steatohepatitis and clinically significant fibrosis to promote timely referrals to specialty care when needed. This article reviews and provides the rationale for current guidelines for NAFLD screening, diagnosis, treatment, and monitoring and addresses barriers to providing evidence-based NAFLD care and how to overcome them. The current paradigm of care calls for primary care clinicians and specialists to work together, within a multidisciplinary care team familiar with obesity and diabetes care, to provide comprehensive management of these complex patients.

Comparing thoracic and abdominal subspecialists' follow-up recommendations for abdominal findings identified on chest CT

PURPOSE

To compare thoracic and abdominal radiologists' follow-up recommendations for abdominal findings identified on chest CT.

METHODS

This Institutional Review Board-exempt, retrospective study was performed at a large academic medical center with subspecialty radiology divisions. We used a combination of natural language processing and manual reviews to identify chest CT reports with and without abdominal findings that were interpreted by thoracic radiologists in 2019. Three random samples of reports were reviewed by two subspecialty trained abdominal radiologists for their agreement with thoracic radiologists' reporting: abdominal findings with follow-up recommendation (Group 1), abdominal findings without follow-up recommendation (Group 2), and no abdominal findings reported (Group 3). Primary outcome was agreement between thoracic and abdominal radiologists for the need for follow-up of abdominal findings. Secondary outcomes were agreement between subspecialists for the presence of abdominal findings and referring clinician adherence to recommendations. Fischer's exact test was used to compare proportions.

RESULTS

Abdominal radiologists agreed with need for follow-up in 48.5% (16/33) of Group 1 cases and agreed follow-up was not necessary for 100% (34/34) of Group 2 cases (p < 0.001). Abdominal radiologists identified abdominal findings in 31.4% (11/35) of Group 3 cases, none of which required follow-up. Referring clinician adherence to thoracic radiologist follow-up recommendations for abdominal findings was 13/33 (39.4%).

CONCLUSION

Abdominal radiologists frequently disagreed with thoracic radiologist recommendations for follow-up of abdominal findings on chest CT. Chest radiologists may consider abdominal subspecialty consultation or clinical decision support to reduce unnecessary imaging.