Development and validation of a screening tool for the identification of inappropriate transthoracic echocardiograms

Implementation effort: Reducing the ordering of inappropriate echocardiograms through a point-of-care decision support tool

Study objective

Reduce inappropriate transthoracic echocardiograms (TTEs) using a series of Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) quality improvement cycles.

Design

Three PDSA cycles were designed with the first integrating a previously published decision support tool (DST) into the electronic TTE order, the second tailoring the DST to reflect the most common inappropriately ordered TTEs at our institution, and the third integrating direct clinician education.

Setting

Malcom Randall Veterans Administration Medical Center, Gainesville, Florida, USA.

Participants

Consecutive patients were studied using the database of all TTEs performed at our institution without regard for specific patient characteristics.

Interventions

Three PDSA Cycles as described above.

Main outcome measure

Reduction in inappropriate TTEs at our institution.

Results

After implementing our DST during the first cycle, no difference in inappropriate TTEs was observed (relative risk [RR] 0.71, p = 0.12, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.46-1.09). After the second cycle, we observed a reduction in the proportion of inappropriate TTEs (RR = 0.69, p = 0.014, 95 % CI 0.5-0.94), however two of the four inappropriate TTEs targeted by the DST increased. Feedback gathered from clinicians in the third cycle showed significant knowledge gaps regarding appropriate use criteria for TTE.

Conclusions

At our facility, implementation of a DST failed to substantially reduce inappropriate TTEs, even when adapted to facility-specific ordering patterns. Gaps in clinician knowledge about TTEs may have contributed to the inefficacy of our DST.

Implementation of appropriate use criteria for cardiology tests and procedures: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

The American College of Cardiology appropriate use criteria (AUC) provide clinicians with evidence-informed recommendations for cardiac care. Adopting AUC into clinical workflows may present challenges, and there may be specific implementation strategies that are effective in promoting effective use of AUC. We sought to assess the effect of implementing AUC in clinical practice.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We conducted a meta-analysis of studies found through a systematic search of the MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane, or CINAHL databases. Peer-reviewed manuscripts published after 2005 that reported on the implementation of AUC for a cardiovascular test or procedure were included. The main outcome was to determine if AUC implementation was associated with a reduction in inappropriate/rarely appropriate care. Of the 18 included studies, the majority used pre/post-cohort designs; few (n = 3) were randomized trials. Most studies used multiple strategies (n = 12, 66.7%). Education was the most common individual intervention strategy (n = 13, 72.2%), followed by audit and feedback (n = 8, 44.4%) and computerized physician order entry (n = 6, 33.3%). No studies reported on formal use of stakeholder engagement or 'nudges'. In meta-analysis, AUC implementation was associated with a reduction in inappropriate/rarely appropriate care (odds ratio 0.62, 95% confidence interval 0.49-0.78). Funnel plot suggests the possibility of publication bias.

CONCLUSION

We found most published efforts to implement AUC observed reductions in inappropriate/rarely appropriate care. Studies rarely explored how or why the implementation strategy was effective. Because interventions were infrequently tested in isolation, it is difficult to make observations about their effectiveness as stand-alone strategies.

STUDY REGISTRATION

PROSPERO 2018 CRD42018091602. Available from https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42018091602.

Appropriate Use Criteria for Echocardiography in the Era of Value-Based Care: Mission Accomplished or Future Mandates?

Purpose of Review

The purpose of this review is to highlight the past impact and current role of the Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) for echocardiography in value-based healthcare, and to address future implications in light of the recent mandate from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to incorporate AUC for other imaging modalities.

Recent Findings

Several studies have proven that the AUC effectively stratify the clinical practice of echocardiography as they predict important echo abnormalities and impact optimal patient care. Recent investigations have tested new technologies and demonstrated the feasibility and scalability of the application of the AUC for echocardiography at the point of care.

Summary

The AUC for echocardiography has accomplished their core mission, as utilization has moderated over the last decade and mandatory implementation at the point of care for echocardiography remains rare. While a new mandate signals another wave of focus on appropriate utilization, echocardiography stands ready.

Handheld ultrasound to reduce requests for inappropriate echocardiogram (HURRIE)

Background

Handheld ultrasound could provide sufficient information to satisfy the clinical questions underlying 'rarely appropriate' echo requests, but there are limited data about its use as a gatekeeper to standard echocardiography. We sought to determine whether the use of handheld ultrasound could improve the appropriate use of echocardiography.

Method

A prospective study comparing handheld ultrasound strategy to standard echocardiography for studies deemed rarely appropriate, using a questionnaire based on appropriate use criteria was conducted across two hospitals, from October 2017 to April 2018.

Results

Groups undergoing Handheld ultrasound (n = 76, 58 (46.5-72.5) years, 53 males, 78% outpatients) and standard echocardiography (n = 72, 61 (49.0-71.5) years, 42 males, 76% outpatients) were comparable. There was a significant decrease in the time to scan from just over 1 month in standard group to a median of 12 days in handheld ultrasound group (P < 0.001). This difference was small for inpatients (from 1 day to a median of 10 min in handheld ultrasound, P = 0.014), but prominent in outpatients (from 1.5 months in the standard group to median of 2 weeks in the handheld ultrasound group, P < 0.001). There was no increase in the need for follow-up scan within 6 months and no significant differences in length of hospital stay for inpatients.

Conclusion

Handheld ultrasound can be an effective gatekeeper to standard echocardiography for requests deemed rarely appropriate, reducing time to echocardiography significantly and potentially decreasing the need for standard echocardiography by up to 20%.

Understanding decision-making in cardiac imaging: determinants of appropriate use

Aims

Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) for echocardiography were developed in 2007 to facilitate decision-making, reduce variability in test utilization, and encourage rational use of imaging. However, there is little evidence that the AUC have favourably influenced ordering behaviour. This study explores the factors that contribute to clinicians requesting echocardiograms with a focus on appropriate use.

Methods and results

Semi-structured face-to-face interviews with cardiologists and non-cardiologists who had requested echocardiograms were conducted at an Australian tertiary hospital. The interview guide included hypothetical clinical scenarios to better understand decision-making in ordering echocardiograms and the actions they could take when receiving test reports. Interviews underwent thematic analysis. Seventeen clinicians were interviewed, ten of whom were cardiologists. All participants ordered echocardiograms to support their clinical decision-making. Awareness of the AUC was low. The categorization of tests as 'appropriate' or 'inappropriate' was considered ineffective as it failed to reflect the decision-making process. The decision to request echocardiograms was influenced by a number of personal and systemic factors as well as guidelines and protocols. Training and experience, patients' expectations, and management of uncertainty were key personal factors. Systemic factors involved the accessibility of services and health insurance status of the patient.

Conclusion

Factors that influenced the ordering of echocardiograms by clinicians at a tertiary care hospital did not appear to be amenable to control with AUC. Alternative approaches may be more effective than the AUC in addressing the overuse of echocardiography.