Four-year impact of an alert notification system on closed-loop communication of critical test results

Theory of radiologist interaction with instant messaging decision support tools: A sequential-explanatory study

Radiology specific clinical decision support systems (CDSS) and artificial intelligence are poorly integrated into the radiologist workflow. Current research and development efforts of radiology CDSS focus on 4 main interventions, based around exam centric time points-after image acquisition, intra-report support, post-report analysis, and radiology workflow adjacent. We review the literature surrounding CDSS tools in these time points, requirements for CDSS workflow augmentation, and technologies that support clinician to computer workflow augmentation. We develop a theory of radiologist-decision tool interaction using a sequential explanatory study design. The study consists of 2 phases, the first a quantitative survey and the second a qualitative interview study. The phase 1 survey identifies differences between average users and radiologist users in software interventions using the User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View (UTAUT) framework. Phase 2 semi-structured interviews provide narratives on why these differences are found. To build this theory, we propose a novel solution called Radibot-a conversational agent capable of engaging clinicians with CDSS as an assistant using existing instant messaging systems supporting hospital communications. This work contributes an understanding of how radiologist-users differ from the average user and can be utilized by software developers to increase satisfaction of CDSS tools within radiology.

Impact of an Automated Closed-Loop Communication and Tracking Tool on the Rate of Recommendations for Additional Imaging in Thoracic Radiology Reports

OBJECTIVE

Assess the effects of feedback reports and implementing a closed-loop communication system on rates of recommendations for additional imaging (RAIs) in thoracic radiology reports.

METHODS

In this retrospective, institutional review board-approved study at an academic quaternary care hospital, we analyzed 176,498 thoracic radiology reports during a pre-intervention (baseline) period from April 1, 2018, to November 30, 2018; a feedback report only period from December 1, 2018, to September 30, 2019; and a closed-loop communication system plus feedback report (IT intervention) period from October 1, 2019, to December 31, 2020, promoting explicit documentation of rationale, time frame, and imaging modality for RAI, defined as complete RAI. A previously validated natural language processing tool was used to classify reports with an RAI. Primary outcome of rate of RAI was compared using a control chart. Multivariable logistic regression determined factors associated with likelihood of RAI. We also estimated the completeness of RAI in reports comparing IT intervention to baseline using χ2 statistic.

RESULTS

The natural language processing tool classified 3.2% (5,682 of 176,498) reports as having an RAI; 3.5% (1,783 of 51,323) during the pre-intervention period, 3.8% (2,147 of 56,722) during the feedback report only period (odds ratio: 1.1, P = .03), and 2.6% (1,752 of 68,453) during the IT intervention period (odds ratio: 0.60, P < .001). In subanalysis, the proportion of incomplete RAI decreased from 84.0% (79 of 94) during the pre-intervention period to 48.5% (47 of 97) during the IT intervention period (P < .001).

DISCUSSION

Feedback reports alone increased RAI rates, and an IT intervention promoting documentation of complete RAI in addition to feedback reports led to significant reductions in RAI rate, incomplete RAI, and improved overall completeness of the radiology recommendations.

Deep Learning Approach for Negation and Speculation Detection for Automated Important Finding Flagging and Extraction in Radiology Report: Internal Validation and Technique Comparison Study

BACKGROUND

Negation and speculation unrelated to abnormal findings can lead to false-positive alarms for automatic radiology report highlighting or flagging by laboratory information systems.

OBJECTIVE

This internal validation study evaluated the performance of natural language processing methods (NegEx, NegBio, NegBERT, and transformers).

METHODS

We annotated all negative and speculative statements unrelated to abnormal findings in reports. In experiment 1, we fine-tuned several transformer models (ALBERT [A Lite Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers], BERT [Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers], DeBERTa [Decoding-Enhanced BERT With Disentangled Attention], DistilBERT [Distilled version of BERT], ELECTRA [Efficiently Learning an Encoder That Classifies Token Replacements Accurately], ERNIE [Enhanced Representation through Knowledge Integration], RoBERTa [Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approach], SpanBERT, and XLNet) and compared their performance using precision, recall, accuracy, and F₁-scores. In experiment 2, we compared the best model from experiment 1 with 3 established negation and speculation-detection algorithms (NegEx, NegBio, and NegBERT).

RESULTS

Our study collected 6000 radiology reports from 3 branches of the Chi Mei Hospital, covering multiple imaging modalities and body parts. A total of 15.01% (105,755/704,512) of words and 39.45% (4529/11,480) of important diagnostic keywords occurred in negative or speculative statements unrelated to abnormal findings. In experiment 1, all models achieved an accuracy of >0.98 and F₁-score of >0.90 on the test data set. ALBERT exhibited the best performance (accuracy=0.991; F₁-score=0.958). In experiment 2, ALBERT outperformed the optimized NegEx, NegBio, and NegBERT methods in terms of overall performance (accuracy=0.996; F₁-score=0.991), in the prediction of whether diagnostic keywords occur in speculative statements unrelated to abnormal findings, and in the improvement of the performance of keyword extraction (accuracy=0.996; F₁-score=0.997).

CONCLUSIONS

The ALBERT deep learning method showed the best performance. Our results represent a significant advancement in the clinical applications of computer-aided notification systems.

Increasing Utilization and Improving Documentation in a Radiology Critical Alert System

Effective communication of critical imaging findings is an important patient safety issue. Despite an increase in exam volumes, our institution saw a decrease in the number of alerts sent through our critical alert system, indicating that critical findings were not being communicated. The purpose of our interventions was to increase the number of critical alerts, while also improving documentation and improving our provider database. We used a program of education for our radiologists and systematic reinforcement to increase the usage of our critical alert system. We also implemented a new time-stamp macro in our dictation system to improve documentation of emergency alerts, and engaged with other departments to improve the contact information in our provider database. Our interventions led to an increase in the monthly number of critical alerts, most notably for findings that require clinical or imaging follow-up (17 alerts per month). There was also a steady improvement in documentation (96.9% compliance), along with an increase in the number of alerts to providers with current contact information (0.5% per month). Our efforts show that educational and collaborative efforts can result in improved communication of radiologic critical results.

Expert review for clinical and translational imaging actionable imaging findings in the daily PET/CT scenario

Background and aim

The American College of Radiology (ACR) defines "actionable findings" the ones requiring a special communication between radiologists and referring clinicians, suggesting to organize their categorization in a three-degree scale on the basis of the risk for the patient to develop complications. These cases may fall in a grey-zone communication between different care figures with the risk of being underestimated or even not being considered at all. In this paper, our aim is to adapt the ACR categorization to the most frequent actionable findings encountered when reporting PET/CT images in a Nuclear Medicine Department, describing the most frequent and relevant imaging features and presenting the modalities of communication and the related clinical interventions that can be modulated by the prognostic severity of the clinical cases.

Materials and methods

We performed a descriptive, observational and critical analysis of the most relevant literature on the topic of "actionable findings", in particular, starting from the reports of the ACR Actionable Reporting Work Group, we categorised and described, in a narrative review, the most relevant "actionable findings" encountered in the Nuclear Medicine PET/CT daily practice.

Results

To the best of our knowledge, to date there are no clear indications on this selective PET/CT topic, considering that the current recommendations target mainly radiologists and assume a certain level of radiological expertise. We resumed and classified the main imaging conditions under the term of "actionable findings" according to the corresponding anatomical districts, and we described their most relevant imaging features (independently of PET avidity or not). Furthermore, a different communication timing and strategy was suggested on the basis of the findings' urgency.

Conclusion

A systematic categorization of the actionable imaging findings according to their prognostic severity may help the reporting physician to choose how and when to communicate with the referring clinician or to identify cases requiring a prompt clinical evaluation. Effective communication is a critical component of diagnostic imaging: timely receipt of the information is more important than the method of delivery.

Incidental Pulmonary Nodules - What Do We Know in 2022

Lung cancer (LC) is the leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide, and early LC diagnosis can significantly improve outcomes and survival rates in affected patients. Implementation of LC screening programs using low-dose computed tomography CT in high-risk subjects aims to detect LC as early as possible, but so far, adoption of screening programs into routine clinical care has been very slow. In recent years, the use of CT has significantly increased the rate of incidentally detected pulmonary nodules. Although most of those incidental pulmonary nodules (IPNs) are benign, some of them represent early-stage LC. Given the large number of IPNs detected in the range of several millions each year, this represents an additional, maybe even larger, opportunity to drive stage shift in LC diagnosis, next to LC screening programs. Comprehensive evaluation and targeted work-up of IPNs are mandatory to identify the malignant nodules from the crowd, and several guidelines provide radiologists and physicians' guidance on IPN assessment and management. However, IPNs still seem to be inadequately processed due to various reasons including insufficient reporting in the radiological report, missing communication between stakeholders, absence of patient tracking systems, and uncertainty regarding responsibilities for the IPN management. In recent years, several approaches such as lung nodule programs, patient tracking software, artificial intelligence, and communication software were introduced into clinical practice to address those shortcomings. This review evaluates the current situation of IPN management and highlights recent developments in process improvement to achieve first steps toward stage shift in LC diagnosis.

Concordance Assessment of Pathology Results with Imaging Findings after Image-Guided Biopsy

PURPOSE

To assess the impact of radiology review for discordance between pathology results from computed tomography (CT)-guided biopsies versus imaging findings performed before a biopsy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this retrospective review, which is compliant with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and approved by the institutional review board, 926 consecutive CT-guided biopsies performed between January 2015 and December 2017 were included. In total, 453 patients were presented in radiology review meetings (prospective group), and the results were classified as concordant or discordant. Results from the remaining 473 patients not presented at the radiology review meetings were retrospectively classified. Times to reintervention and to definitive diagnosis were obtained for discordant cases; of these, 49 (11%) of the 453 patients were in the prospective group and 55 (12%) of the 473 patients in the retrospective group.

RESULTS

Pathology results from CT-guided biopsies were discordant with imaging in 11% (104/926) of the cases, with 57% (59/104) of these cases proving to be malignant. In discordant cases, reintervention with biopsy and surgery yielded a shorter time to definitive diagnosis (28 and 14 days, respectively) than an imaging follow-up (78 days) (P < .001). The median time to diagnosis was 41 days in the prospective group and 56 days in the retrospective group (P = .46). When radiologists evaluated the concordance between pathology and imaging findings and recommended a repeat biopsy for the discordant cases, more biopsies were performed (50% [11/22] vs 13% [4/31]; P = .005).

CONCLUSIONS

Eleven percent of CT-guided biopsies yielded pathology results that were discordant with imaging findings, with 57% of these proving to be malignant on further workup.

Analysis of critical report notification from musculoskeletal radiology in a tertiary academic medical institution with a regional trauma center

Purpose

We aimed to analyze the prevalence, causes, and clinical settings of 4-year critical radiologic reports (CRRs) notified from the musculoskeletal section of the radiology department. Then, we investigated the communication outcomes.

Methods

This study was approved by our institutional review board. We retrospectively included 175 musculoskeletal CRRs from our database between January 2017 and December 2020. The CRRs were analyzed by two musculoskeletal radiologists, who categorized the CRRs by clinical setting (emergency department(ED) patient, outpatient, and inpatient), body part, type of image modality, reason for CRR, incidental lesion, and clinical outcome. The clinical outcome was retrieved from the electronic medical records.

Results

The 175 musculoskeletal CRRs accounted for 5.4% of the CRRs (n = 3217) available in the study period. Most CRRs (94.9%, 166/175) corresponded to the musculoskeletal system, while the remaining ones (5.1%, 9/175) corresponded to the non-musculoskeletal system. In addition, the spine, extremities, and thoracic cage accounted for 52.6%, 40.6%, and 1.7% of the musculoskeletal CRRs, respectively. Moreover, most patients presented to the ED (50.3%, 88/175), followed by inpatients (30.9%, 54/175), and outpatients (18.9%, 33/175). The CRR reasons included missed fracture (54.3%), suspected malignancy (16%), clinical emergency (10.3%), unexpected infection/inflammation (11.4%), and others (8%). Furthermore, 11 (6.3%) incidental lesions were not related to the primary imaging purpose. Referring clinicians actively acknowledged 80% of the CRRs. The loss to follow-up action was the highest in the ED patients (35.2%, 31/88; p < 0.001), being significantly higher than that in outpatients (6.1%, 2/33) and inpatients (3.7%, 2/54).

Conclusion

Missed fractures were the most common cause of musculoskeletal CRRs. ED showed prevalence in musculoskeletal CRRs and reflected the highest loss to follow-up action. ED physicians should pay more attention to CRRs to enhance patient care.

Medical imaging call centre: a communication success story

AIM

To evaluate utilisation of a medical imaging call centre (MICC) at a multi-site, academic radiology department, focusing on communication of critical, urgent, or significant unexpected findings.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Institutional research ethics board approval was obtained. All calls made to MICC from 1 January to 31 December 2019 were reviewed retrospectively. The total number of calls, date, and reason of each call, level of report alert, and turnaround time (TAT) were recorded. Level 1, 2, and 3 alerts were defined as "potentially life-threatening new/unexpected findings", "could result in morbidity/mortality", or "not immediately life-threatening or urgent", respectively. TAT was defined as the time from alert request received by the MICC until acknowledgement of receipt by the referring physician, with a desired TAT of 60 min, 3 h, and 3 days for each level, respectively.

RESULTS

The MICC received 29,799 calls in 2019, on average 2,483 (range 1,989-3,098) calls per month. The most common indications for contacting the MICC were to request imaging reports to be expedited (14,916 calls, 50%) and issuing report alerts to communicate unexpected or urgent findings (7,060 calls, 24%). Average number and range of calls for Level 1, 2, and 3 alerts were 57 (39-80), 345 (307-388), and 187 (127-215) per month, respectively. Average TAT for Level 1, 2, and 3 report alerts were 59 min, 2 h 26 min, and 19 h 39 min, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The MICC received a large volume of calls and was a successful method for timely communication of unexpected or urgent imaging findings using a three-tiered alert system.

Handoffs in Radiology: Minimizing Communication Errors and Improving Care Transitions

Handoffs are essential to achieving safe care transitions. In radiology practice, frequent transitions of care responsibility among clinicians, radiologists, and patients occur between moments of care such as determining protocol, imaging, interpreting, and consulting. Continuity of care is maintained across these transitions with handoffs, which are the process of communicating patient information and transferring decision-making responsibility. As a leading cause of medical error, handoffs are a major communication challenge that is exceedingly common in both diagnostic and interventional radiology practice. The frequency of handoffs in radiology underscores the importance of using evidence-based strategies to improve patient safety in the radiology department. In this article, reliability science principles and handoff improvement tools are adapted to provide radiology-focused strategies at individual, team, and organizational levels with the goal of minimizing handoff errors and improving care transitions.

Electronic Health Record Transition and Impact on Screening Test Follow-Up

INTRODUCTION

Nonurgent clinically significant test results (CSTRs) are a common cause of missed and delayed diagnoses. However, little is known about the impact of electronic health record (EHR) transitions on CSTR follow-up. This study examines follow-up rates for three CSTRs (incidental pulmonary nodules [IPNs]), prostate-specific antigen [PSA], and Pap smears) before and after EHR transition.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study at an urban tertiary medical center using an interrupted time series (ITS) design to assess monthly changes in CSTR follow-up-defined as completion of computed tomography chest imaging 5 to 13 months after first mention of an IPN in a radiology report; completion of a follow-up PSA test, urology visit, or prostate biopsy within 6 months of the first reported PSA > 4; or completion of a colposcopy or gynecology visit within 6 months of a first reported abnormal Pap smear. Patients were included with first-onset abnormal CSTRs for IPN, PSAs > 4, or abnormal Pap smears occurring in the 24 months before and after the EHR transition.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in follow-up in the IPN or the Pap smear ITS models. In the PSA ITS model, follow-up was significantly decreasing (p = 0.0133) in the preintervention period, and there was a significant change in trend from intervention to postintervention (p = 0.0279).

CONCLUSION

EHR transition reversed a decreasing trend over time for PSA test follow-up, while IPN and Pap smear follow-up trends did not change significantly. Effects of EHR transition may differ by test studied.

Incidental Findings on Whole-body Computed Tomography in Major Trauma Patients: Who and What?

PURPOSE

Whole-body computed tomography (WBCT) scans are frequently used for trauma patients, and sometimes, nontraumatic findings are observed. We aimed to investigate the characteristics of patients with nontraumatic findings on WBCT.

METHODS

From 2013 to 2016, adult trauma patients who underwent WBCT were enrolled. The proportions of nontraumatic findings in different anatomical regions were studied. Nontraumatic findings were classified and evaluated as clinically important findings and findings that needed no further follow-up or treatment. The characteristics of the patients with nontraumatic findings were analyzed and compared with those of patients without nontraumatic findings.

RESULTS

Two hundred seventeen patients were enrolled in this study during the 3-year study period, and 89 (41.0%) patients had nontraumatic findings. Nontraumatic findings were found more frequently in the abdomen (69.2%) than in the head/neck (17.3%) and chest regions (13.5%). In total, 31.3% of the findings needed further follow-up or treatment. Patients with nontraumatic findings that needed further management were significantly older than those without nontraumatic findings (57.3 vs. 38.9; P < .001), particularly those with abdominal nontraumatic findings (57.9 vs. 41.3; P < .001). A significantly higher proportion of women were observed in the group with head/neck nontraumatic findings that needed further management than in the group without nontraumatic findings (56.3% vs 24.9%; P = .015).

CONCLUSIONS

Whole-body computed tomography could provide alternative benefits for nontraumatic findings. Whole-body computed tomography images should be read carefully for nontraumatic findings, particularly for elderly patients or the head/neck region of female patients. A comprehensive program for the follow-up of nontraumatic findings is needed.

Recurring Critical Results and Their Impact on the Volume of Critical Calls at a Tertiary Care Center

BACKGROUND

When a test result is critically abnormal, laboratories notify the responsible caregivers immediately, usually with a phone call. If the same test was ordered repeatedly, our institution has a policy of not notifying the caregiver if the previous result was also critical and within 24 h. We compared our policy with those of several different laboratories in North America and estimated the impact of changing our current policy to calling for all critical results, regardless of the time interval.

METHODS

Several North American laboratories (n = 15) were surveyed regarding their critical result notification policy. For our institution, we performed a retrospective analysis focusing on critical values in a 5-month period for common chemistry tests. We estimated the effect on volume of calls and the impact on workload with regard to changing the critical result notification policy and critical thresholds.

RESULTS

A majority of surveyed laboratories had some form of restriction for calling about recurring critical results. In our institution, removing the restrictions would increase the average number of daily calls by 11%-155%, depending on the analyte. The choice of critical thresholds also has an effect on the number of calls, and the effect depends on the analyte and the threshold chosen.

CONCLUSIONS

Guidelines do not specify how recurring critical results should be communicated. Depending on the institutional resources, some laboratories call only the first critical result for one or more tests if certain criteria are met. Modification of these policies can lead to significant changes in the volume of calls made by the laboratory and can have numerous impacts related to workload, logistics, and patient care.

A Feasibility Study of Expanded Home-Based Telerehabilitation After Stroke

Introduction: High doses of activity-based rehabilitation therapy improve outcomes after stroke, but many patients do not receive this for various reasons such as poor access, transportation difficulties, and low compliance. Home-based telerehabilitation (TR) can address these issues. The current study evaluated the feasibility of an expanded TR program. Methods: Under the supervision of a licensed therapist, adults with stroke and limb weakness received home-based TR (1 h/day, 6 days/week) delivered using games and exercises. New features examined include extending therapy to 12 weeks duration, treating both arm and leg motor deficits, patient assessments performed with no therapist supervision, adding sensors to real objects, ingesting a daily experimental (placebo) pill, and generating automated actionable reports. Results: Enrollees (n = 13) were median age 61 (IQR 52-65.5), and 129 (52-486) days post-stroke. Patients initiated therapy on 79.9% of assigned days and completed therapy on 65.7% of days; median therapy dose was 50.4 (33.3-56.7) h. Non-compliance doubled during weeks 7-12. Modified Rankin scores improved in 6/13 patients, 3 of whom were >3 months post-stroke. Fugl-Meyer motor scores increased by 6 (2.5-12.5) points in the arm and 1 (-0.5 to 5) point in the leg. Assessments spanning numerous dimensions of stroke outcomes were successfully implemented; some, including a weekly measure that documented a decline in fatigue (p = 0.004), were successfully scored without therapist supervision. Using data from an attached sensor, real objects could be used to drive game play. The experimental pill was taken on 90.9% of therapy days. Automatic actionable reports reliably notified study personnel when critical values were reached. Conclusions: Several new features performed well, and useful insights were obtained for those that did not. A home-based telehealth system supports a holistic approach to rehabilitation care, including intensive rehabilitation therapy, secondary stroke prevention, screening for complications of stroke, and daily ingestion of a pill. This feasibility study informs future efforts to expand stroke TR. Clinical Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov, # NCT03460587.

Radiology Patient Outcome Measures: Impact of a Departmental Pay-for-Performance Initiative on Key Quality and Safety Measures

OBJECTIVE

Assess impact of a multifaceted pay-for-performance (PFP) initiative on radiologists' behavior regarding key quality and safety measures.

METHODS

This institutional review board-approved prospective study was performed at a large, 12-division urban academic radiology department. Radiology patient outcome measures were implemented October 1, 2017, measuring report signature timeliness, critical results communication, and generation of peer-learning communications between radiologists. Subspecialty division-wide and individual radiologist targets were specified, performance was transparently communicated on an intranet dashboard updated daily, and performance was financially incentivized (5% of salary) quarterly. We compared outcomes 12 months pre- versus 12 months post-PFP implementation. Primary outcome was monthly 90th percentile time from scan completion to final report signature (CtoF). Secondary outcomes were percentage timely closed-loop communication of critical results and number of division-wide peer-learning communications. Statistical process control analysis and parallel coordinates charts were used to assess for temporal trends.

RESULTS

In all, 144 radiologists generated 1,255,771 reports (613,273 pre-PFP) during the study period. Monthly 90th percentile CtoF exhibited an absolute decrease of 4.4 hours (from 21.1 to 16.7 hours) and a 20.9% relative decrease post-PFP. Statistical process control analysis demonstrated significant decreases in 90th percentile CtoF post-PFP, sustained throughout the study period (P < .003). Between 95% (119 of 125, July 1, 2018, to September 30, 2018) and 98.4% (126 of 128, October 1, 2017, to December 31, 2017) of radiologists achieved >90% timely closure of critical alerts; all divisions exceeded the target of 90 peer-learning communications each quarter (range: 97-472) after January 1, 2018.

DISCUSSION

Implementation of a multifaceted PFP initiative using well-defined radiology patient outcome measures correlated with measurable improvements in radiologist behavior regarding key quality and safety parameters.

RADAR: A Closed-Loop Quality Improvement Initiative Leveraging A Safety Net Model for Incidental Pulmonary Nodule Management

BACKGROUND

This study was conducted to assess whether patients with incidental pulmonary nodules (IPNs) received timely follow-up care after implementation of a quality improvement (QI) initiative between radiologists and primary care providers (PCPs).

METHODS

A QI study was conducted at an academic medical center for IPNs identified on chest imaging ordered by PCPs, performed between February 1, 2017, and March 31, 2019, and with at least one-year follow-up. A QI initiative, RADAR (Radiology Result Alert and Development of Automated Resolution), was implemented on March 1, 2018, consisting of (1) a novel, electronic communication tool enabling radiologist-generated alerts with time frame and modality for IPN follow-up recommendations, and (2) a safety net team for centralized care coordination to ensure that communication loops were closed. A preintervention IPN cohort was generated through a natural language processing (NLP) algorithm for radiology reports paired with manual chart review. A postintervention IPN cohort was identified using alerts captured in RADAR. The primary outcome was percentage of IPN follow-up alerts resolved on time (defined as receiving follow-up care within the recommended time frame), comparing pre- and postintervention IPN cohorts. Secondary outcomes included agreement between PCPs and radiologists on the recommended follow-up care plan.

RESULTS

A total of 218 IPN alerts were assessed following exclusions: 110 preintervention and 108 postintervention. IPN timely follow-up improved from 64.5% (71/110) to 84.3% (91/108) (p = 0.001). Postintervention, there was 87.0% (94/108) agreement between PCPs and radiologists on the recommended follow-up plan.

CONCLUSION

The RADAR QI initiative was associated with increased timely IPN follow-up. This safety net model may be scaled to other radiology findings and clinical care settings.

A practical system that enables physicians to respond expeditiously to significant unexpected findings (SUFs) in radiological reports

PURPOSE

To demonstrate effectiveness of our present radiological report check flowchart enabling physicians to respond to significant unexpected findings (SUFs), by comparing the response periods from the examination date to the action date on untreated SUFs between the previous and present versions of our flowchart.

METHODS

In the flowchart's previous version used February-October 2019, SUFs, which were notified by email, were audited every month. The physician received a phone call and was asked to act on the untreated SUF. In the flowchart's present version used from November 2019 to May 2020, SUFs were audited every 2 weeks. The physician and his/her chief were asked to return a written response to the untreated SUF. We evaluated the difference in the response periods between the previous and present versions of the flowchart.

RESULTS

With the previous flowchart's use, untreated SUFs were 43 of 229 SUFs (18.8%) with the present flowchart untreated SUFs were 22 of 130 SUFs (16.9%). All SUFs in both periods were eventually responded. The present flowchart (median/range, 25/11-70 days) significantly had shorter response periods than the previous flowchart (70/16-290 days) (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

The present flowchart employing a shortened primary audit interval, a written response, and the department chief's intervention, helped reduce the response periods.

Delayed Diagnosis Is the Primary Cause of Sarcoma Litigation: Analysis of Malpractice Claims in the United States

BACKGROUND

Sarcoma care is highly litigated in medical malpractice claims. Understanding the reasons for litigation and legal outcomes in sarcoma care may help physicians deliver more effective and satisfying care to patients while limiting their legal exposure. However, few studies have described malpractice litigation in sarcoma care.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) What percentage of sarcoma malpractice cases result in a defendant verdict? (2) What is the median indemnity payment for cases that result in a plaintiff verdict or settlement? (3) What are the most common reasons for litigation, injuries sustained, and medical specialties of the defendant physicians? (4) What are the factors associated with plaintiff verdicts or settlements and higher indemnity payments?

METHODS

The national medicolegal database Westlaw was queried for medical malpractice cases pertaining to sarcomas that reached verdicts or settlements. Cases from 1982 to 2018 in the United States were included in the study to evaluate for trends in sarcoma litigation. Demographic and clinical data, tumor characteristics, reasons for litigation, injuries, and legal outcomes were recorded for each case. A univariate analysis was performed to identify factors associated with plaintiff verdicts or settlements and higher indemnity payments, such as tumor characteristics, defendant's medical or surgical specialty, reason for litigation, and injuries sustained. A total of 92 cases related to sarcomas were included in the study, of which 40 were related to bone sarcomas and 52 were related to soft-tissue sarcomas. Eighty-five percent (78 of 92) of cases involved adult patients (mean age ± SD: 40 ± 15 years) while 15% (14 of 92) of cases involved pediatric patients (mean age ± SD: 12.5 ± 5 years).

RESULTS

Thirty-eight percent (35 of 92) of the included cases resulted in a defendant verdict, 30% (28 of 92) resulted in a plaintiff verdict, and 32% (29 of 92) resulted in a settlement. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) indemnity payment for plaintiff verdicts and settlements was USD 1.9 million (USD 0.5 to USD 3.5 million). Median (IQR) indemnity payments were higher for cases resulting in a plaintiff verdict than for cases that resulted in a settlement (USD 3.3 million [1.1 to 5.7 million] versus USD 1.2 million [0.4 to 2.4 million]; difference of medians = USD 2.2 million; p = 0.008). The most common reason for litigation was delayed diagnosis of sarcoma (91%; 84 of 92) while the most common injuries cited were progression to metastatic disease (51%; 47 of 92) and wrongful death (41%; 38 of 92). Malpractice claims were most commonly filed against primary care physicians (26%; 28 of 109 defendants), nononcology-trained orthopaedic surgeons (23%; 25 of 109), and radiologists (15%; 16 of 109). Cases were more likely to result in a ruling in favor of the plaintiff or settlement if a delay in diagnosis occurred despite suspicious findings on imaging or pathologic findings (80% versus 51%; odds ratio 3.84 [95% CI 1.34 to 11.03]; p = 0.02). There were no differences in indemnity payments with the numbers available in terms of tumor type, tumor location, defendant specialty, reason for litigation, and resulting injuries.

CONCLUSIONS

Many lawsuits were made against primary care physicians, nononcology-trained orthopaedic surgeons, or radiologists for a delayed diagnosis of sarcoma despite the presence of imaging or histologic findings suspicious for malignancy. Although previous studies of bone and soft-tissue sarcomas have not shown a consistent association between time to diagnosis and decreased survival, our study suggests that physicians are still likely to lose these lawsuits because of the perceived benefits of an early diagnosis.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Physicians can mitigate their malpractice risk while reducing delays in diagnosis of sarcomas by carefully reviewing all existing diagnostic studies, establishing closed-loop communication protocols to communicate critical findings from diagnostic studies, and developing policies to facilitate second-opinion consultation, particularly for imaging studies, with an experienced sarcoma specialist. Musculoskeletal oncologists may be able to help further reduce the rates of malpractice litigation in sarcoma care by helping patients understand that delays in diagnosis do not necessarily constitute medical malpractice.

Variation in electronic test results management and its implications for patient safety: A multisite investigation

Objective

The management and follow-up of diagnostic test results is a major patient safety concern. The aim of this qualitative study was to explore how clinicians manage test results on an everyday basis (work-as-done) in a health information technology–enabled emergency department setting. The objectives were to identify (1) variations in work-as-done in test results management and (2) the strategies clinicians use to ensure optimal management of diagnostic test results.

Materials and Methods

Qualitative interviews (n = 26) and field observations were conducted across 3 Australian emergency departments. Interview data coded for results management (ie, tracking, acknowledgment, and follow-up), and artifacts, were reviewed to identify variations in descriptions of work-as-done. Thematic analysis was performed to identify common themes.

Results

Despite using the same test result management application, there were variations in how the system was used. We identified 5 themes relating to electronic test results management: (1) tracking test results, (2) use and understanding of system functionality, (3) visibility of result actions and acknowledgment, (4) results inbox use, and (5) challenges associated with the absence of an inbox for results notifications for advanced practice nurses.

Discussion

Our findings highlight that variations in work-as-done can function to overcome perceived impediments to managing test results in a HIT-enabled environment and thus identify potential risks in the process. By illuminating work-as-done, we identified strategies clinicians use to enhance test result management including paper-based manual processes, cognitive reminders, and adaptive use of electronic medical record functionality.

Conclusions

Test results tracking and follow-up is a priority area in need of health information technology development and training to improve team-based collaboration/communication of results follow-up and diagnostic safety.

Effect of COVID-19 on computed tomography usage and critical test results in the emergency department: an observational study

BACKGROUND

The effect of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on new or unexpected radiologic findings in the emergency department (ED) is unclear. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the number of computed tomography (CT) critical test results in the ED.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective observational study of ED CT usage at 4 Ontario hospitals (1 urban academic, 1 northern academic, 1 urban community and 1 rural community) over 1 month during the COVID-19 pandemic (April 2020) and over the same month 1 year earlier (April 2019; before the pandemic). The CT findings from 1 of the 4 hospitals, Hamilton Health Sciences, were reviewed to determine the number of critical test results by body region. Total CT numbers were compared using Poisson regression and CT yields were compared using the χ² test.

RESULTS

The median number of ED CT examinations per day was markedly lower during the COVID-19 pandemic than before the pandemic (82 v. 133, p < 0.01), with variation across hospitals (p = 0.001). On review of 1717 CT reports from Hamilton Health Sciences, fewer critical test results were demonstrated on CT pulmonary angiograms (43 v. 88, p < 0.001) and CT examinations of the head (82 v. 112, p < 0.03) during the pandemic than before the pandemic; however, the yield of these examinations did not change. Although the absolute number of all CT examinations with critical test results decreased, the number of CT examinations without critical results decreased more, resulting in a higher yield of CT for critical test results during the pandemic (46% [322/696] v. 37% [379/1021], p < 0.01).

INTERPRETATION

Emergency department CT volumes markedly decreased during the COVID-19 pandemic, predominantly because there were fewer examinations with new or unexpected findings. This suggests that COVID-19 public information campaigns influenced the behaviours of patients presenting to the ED.

Assessment of actionable findings in radiology reports

PURPOSE

The American College of Radiology (ACR) Actionable Reporting Work Group defined three categories of imaging findings that require additional, nonroutine communication with the referring physician because of their urgency or unexpectedness. The objective of this study was to determine the prevalence of actionable findings in radiology reports, and to assess how well radiologists agree on the categorisation of actionable findings.

METHOD

From 124,909 consecutive radiology reports stored in the electronic health record system of a large university hospital, 1000 reports were randomly selected. Two radiologists independently annotated all actionable findings according to the three categories of urgency defined by the ACR Work Group. Annotation differences were resolved in a consensus meeting and a final category was established for each report. Interannotator agreement was measured by accuracy and the kappa coefficient.

RESULTS

The prevalence of the three categories of actionable findings together was 32.5 %. Of all reports, 10.9 % were from patients seen in the emergency department. Prevalence of actionable findings for these patients (45.9 %) was considerably higher than for patients in routine clinical care (30.9 %). Interannotator agreement scores on the categorisation of actionable findings were 0.812 for accuracy and 0.616 for kappa coefficient.

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of actionable findings in radiology reports is high. The interannotator agreement scores are moderate, indicating that categorisation of actionable findings is a difficult task. To avoid unneeded increase in the workload of radiologists, in particular in routine practice, clinical context may need to be considered in deciding whether a finding is actionable.

Closing the Loop-A Pilot in Health System Improvement

A significant number of patients are reported to not receive timely completion of their recommended follow-up intervention following the interpretation of their imaging studies, contributing to patient deaths resulting from inaccurate or delayed diagnosis. Though automated critical test notification systems and computerized communication mechanisms currently exist, many institutions are discovering that there continue to be gaps in the completion of follow-up recommendations. Herein, we describe how we developed and implemented a closed-loop program dedicated to identifying such gaps and ensuring patients were aware of and received appropriate follow-up.

Unscheduled Radiologic Examination Orders in the Electronic Health Record: A Novel Resource for Targeting Ambulatory Diagnostic Errors in Radiology

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of unscheduled radiologic examination orders in an electronic health record, and the proportion of unscheduled orders that are clinically necessary, by modality.

METHODS

This retrospective study was conducted from January to October 2016 at an academic institution. All unscheduled radiologic examination orders were retrieved for seven modalities (CT, MR, ultrasound, obstetric ultrasound, bone densitometry, mammography, and fluoroscopy). After excluding duplicates, 100 randomly selected orders from each modality were assigned to two physician reviewers who classified their clinical necessity, with 10% overlap. Interannotator agreement was assessed using κ statistics, the percentage of clinically necessary unscheduled orders was compared, and χ² analysis was used to assess differences by modality.

RESULTS

A total 494,503 radiologic examination orders were placed during the study period. After exclusions, 33,546 unscheduled orders were identified, 7% of all radiologic examination orders. Among 700 reviewed unscheduled orders, agreement was substantial (κ = 0.63). Eighty-seven percent of bone densitometric examinations and sixty-five percent of mammographic studies were considered clinically necessary, primarily for follow-up management. The majority of orders in each modality were clinically necessary, except for CT, obstetric ultrasound, and fluoroscopy (P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Large numbers of radiologic examination orders remain unscheduled in the electronic health record. A substantial portion are clinically necessary, representing potential delays in executing documented provider care plans. Clinically unnecessary unscheduled orders may inadvertently be scheduled and performed. Identifying and performing clinically necessary unscheduled radiologic examination orders may help reduce diagnostic errors related to diagnosis and treatment delays and enhance patient safety, while eliminating clinically unnecessary unscheduled orders will help avoid unneeded testing.

Assessing information sources to elucidate diagnostic process errors in radiologic imaging - a human factors framework

Objective

To assess information sources that may elucidate errors related to radiologic diagnostic imaging, quantify the incidence of potential safety events from each source, and quantify the number of steps involved from diagnostic imaging chain and socio-technical factors.

Materials and Methods

This retrospective, Institutional Review Board-approved study was conducted at the ambulatory healthcare facilities associated with a large academic hospital. Five information sources were evaluated: an electronic safety reporting system (ESRS), alert notification for critical result (ANCR) system, picture archive and communication system (PACS)-based quality assurance (QA) tool, imaging peer-review system, and an imaging computerized physician order entry (CPOE) and scheduling system. Data from these sources (January-December 2015 for ESRS, ANCR, QA tool, and the peer-review system; January-October 2016 for the imaging ordering system) were collected to quantify the incidence of potential safety events. Reviewers classified events by the step(s) in the diagnostic process they could elucidate, and their socio-technical factors contributors per the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) framework.

Results

Potential safety events ranged from 0.5% to 62.1% of events collected from each source. Each of the information sources contributed to elucidating diagnostic process errors in various steps of the diagnostic imaging chain and contributing socio-technical factors, primarily Person, Tasks, and Tools and Technology.

Discussion

Various information sources can differentially inform understanding diagnostic process errors related to radiologic diagnostic imaging.

Conclusion

Information sources elucidate errors in various steps within the diagnostic imaging workflow and can provide insight into socio-technical factors that impact patient safety in the diagnostic process.

Adoption of a Closed-Loop Communication Tool to Establish and Execute a Collaborative Follow-Up Plan for Incidental Pulmonary Nodules

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study is to assess radiologists' adoption of a closed-loop communication and tracking system, Result Alert and Development of Automated Resolution (RADAR), for incidental pulmonary nodules and to measure its effect on the completeness of radiologists' follow-up recommendations. MATERIALS AND METHODS. This retrospective study was performed at a tertiary academic center that performs more than 600,000 radiology examinations annually. Before RADAR, the institution's standard of care was for radiologists to generate alerts for newly discovered incidental pulmonary nodules using a previously described PACS-embedded software tool. RADAR is a new closed-loop communication tool embedded in the PACS and enterprise provider workflow that enables establishing a collaborative follow-up plan between a radiologist and referring provider and helps automate collaborative follow-up plan tracking and execution. We assessed RADAR adoption for incidental pulmonary nodules, the primary outcome, in our thoracic radiology division (study period March 9, 2018, through August 2, 2018). The secondary outcome was the completeness of follow-up recommendation for incidental pulmonary nodules, defined as explicit imaging modality and time frame for follow-up. RESULTS. After implementation, 106 of 183 (58%) incidental pulmonary nodules alerts were generated using RADAR. RADAR adoption increased by 75% during the study period (40% in the first 3 weeks vs 70% in the last 3 weeks; p < 0.001 test for trend). All RADAR alerts had explicit documentation of imaging modality and follow-up time frame, compared with 71% for non-RADAR alerts for incidental pulmonary nodules (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION. A closed-loop communication system that enables establishing and executing a collaborative follow-up plan for incidental pulmonary nodules can be adopted and improves the quality of radiologists' follow-up recommendations.

Improving Communication of Actionable Findings in Radiology Imaging Studies and Procedures Using an EMR-Independent System

The primary purpose of this study is to determine if the implementation of an actionable findings communication system (PeerVue) with explicitly defined criteria for the classification of critical results, leads to an increase in the number of actionable findings reported by radiologists. Secondary goals are to 1) analyze the adoption rate of PeerVue and 2) assess the accuracy of the classification of actionable findings within this system. Over a two-year period, 890,204 radiology reports were analyzed retrospectively in order to identify the number of actionable findings communicated before (Year 1) and after the implementation of PeerVue (Year 2) at a tertiary care academic medical center. A sub-sample of 145 actionable findings over a two-month period in Year 2 was further analyzed to assess the degree of concordance with our reporting policy. Before PeerVue, 4623/423,070 (1.09%) of radiology reports contained an actionable finding. After its implementation, this number increased to 6825/467,134 (1.46%) (p < 0.0001). PeerVue was used in 3886/6825 (56.9%) cases with actionable findings. The remaining 2939/6825 (43.1%) were reported using the legacy tagging system. From the sub-sample taken from PeerVue, 104/145 (71.7%) were consistent with the updated reporting policy. A software program (PeerVue) utilized for the communication of actionable findings contributed to a 34% (p < 0.0001) increase in the reporting rate of actionable findings. A sub-analysis within the new system indicated a 56.9% adoption rate and a 71.7% accuracy rate in reporting of actionable findings.

Classifying Safety Events Related to Diagnostic Imaging From a Safety Reporting System Using a Human Factors Framework

Purpose:

To measure diagnostic imaging safety events reported to an electronic safety reporting system (ESRS) and assess steps where they occurred within the diagnostic imaging workflow and contributing socio-technical factors.

Methods:

We evaluated all ESRS safety reports related to diagnostic imaging during calendar 2015 at an academic medical center with 50,000 admissions, 950,000 ambulatory visits, and performing 680,000 diagnostic imaging studies annually. Each report was assigned a 0-4 harm score by the reporter; we classified scores of 2 (minor harm) to 4 (death) as “potential harm”. Two reviewers manually classified reports into steps involved in the diagnostic imaging chain and socio-technical factors per the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) framework. Kappa measured inter-reviewer agreement on 10% of reports. The percentage of reports that could cause “potential harm” was compared for each step and socio-technical factor using chi-square analysis.

Results:

Of 11,570 safety reports submitted in 2015, 854 (7%) were related to diagnostic imaging. Although the most common step was Imaging Procedure (54% of reports), potential harm occurred more in Report Communication (Odds Ratio=2.36, p=0.05). Person factors most commonly contributed to safety reports (71%). Potential harm occurred more in safety reports that were related to Task compared to Person factors (OR=5.03, p<0.0001). Kappa was 0.79.

Conclusion:

Safety events were related to diagnostic imaging in 7% of reports and potential harm occurred primarily during Imaging Procedure and Report Communication. Safety events were attributed to multifactorial socio-technical factors. Further work is necessary to decrease safety events related to diagnostic imaging.

Assessing Documentation of Critical Imaging Result Follow-up Recommendations in Emergency Department Discharge Instructions

To facilitate follow-up of critical test results across transitions in patient care settings, we implemented an electronic discharge module that enabled care providers to include follow-up recommendations in the discharge instructions. We assessed the impact of this module on documentation of follow-up recommendations for critical imaging findings in Emergency Department (ED) discharge instructions. We studied 240 patients with critical imaging findings discharged from the ED before (n = 80) and after (n = 160) implementation of the module. We manually reviewed hand-written forms and electronic discharge instructions to determine if follow-up recommendations were documented. Follow-up recommendations in ED discharge instructions increased from 60.0% (48/80) to 73.8% (118/160) post-module implementation (p = 0.03), a relative increase of 23%. There was no significant change in the rate of documented critical imaging findings in the discharge instructions (77.5% [62/80] before the intervention and 76.9% [123/160] after the intervention; p = 0.91). Implementation of a discharge module was associated with increased documentation of critical imaging finding follow-up recommendations in ED discharge instructions. However, one in four patients still did not receive adequate follow-up recommendations, suggesting further opportunities for performance improvement exist.

The Impact of Automated Notification on Follow-up of Actionable Tests Pending at Discharge: a Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Follow-up of tests pending at discharge (TPADs) is poor. We previously demonstrated a twofold increase in awareness of any TPAD by attendings and primary care physicians (PCPs) using an automated email intervention OBJECTIVE: To determine whether automated notification improves documented follow-up for actionable TPADs DESIGN: Cluster-randomized controlled trial SUBJECTS: Attendings and PCPs caring for adult patients discharged from general medicine and cardiology services with at least one actionable TPAD between June 2011 and May 2012 INTERVENTION: An automated system that notifies discharging attendings and network PCPs of finalized TPADs by email MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was the proportion of actionable TPADs with documented action determined by independent physician review of the electronic health record (EHR). Secondary outcomes included documented acknowledgment, 30-day readmissions, and adjusted median days to documented follow-up.

KEY RESULTS

Of the 3378 TPADs sampled, 253 (7.5%) were determined to be actionable by physician review. Of these, 150 (123 patients discharged by 53 attendings) and 103 (90 patients discharged by 44 attendings) were assigned to intervention and usual care groups, respectively, and underwent chart review. The proportion of actionable TPADs with documented action was 60.7 vs. 56.3% (p = 0.82) in the intervention vs. usual care groups, similar for documented acknowledgment. The proportion of patients with actionable TPADs readmitted within 30 days was 22.8 vs. 31.1% in the intervention vs. usual care groups (p = 0.24). The adjusted median days [95% CI] to documented action was 9 [6.2, 11.8] vs. 14 [10.2, 17.8] (p = 0.04) in the intervention vs. usual care groups, similar for documented acknowledgment. In sub-group analysis, the intervention had greater impact on documented action for patients with network PCPs compared with usual care (70 vs. 50%, p = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Automated notification of actionable TPADs shortened time to action but did not significantly improve documented follow-up, except for network-affiliated patients. The high proportion of actionable TPADs without any documented follow-up (~ 40%) represents an ongoing safety concern.

CLINICAL TRIALS IDENTIFIER

NCT01153451.

Semiautomated System for Nonurgent, Clinically Significant Pathology Results

BACKGROUND

Failure of timely test result follow-up has consequences including delayed diagnosis and treatment, added costs, and potential patient harm. Closed-loop communication is key to ensure clinically significant test results (CSTRs) are acknowledged and acted upon appropriately. A previous implementation of the Alert Notification of Critical Results (ANCR) system to facilitate closed-loop communication of imaging CSTRs yielded improved communication of critical radiology results and enhanced adherence to institutional CSTR policies.

OBJECTIVE

This article extends the ANCR application to pathology and evaluates its impact on closed-loop communication of new malignancies, a common and important type of pathology CSTR.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This Institutional Review Board-approved study was performed at a 150-bed community, academically affiliated hospital. ANCR was adapted for pathology CSTRs. Natural language processing was used on 30,774 pathology reports 13 months pre- and 13 months postintervention, identifying 5,595 reports with malignancies. Electronic health records were reviewed for documented acknowledgment for a random sample of reports. Percent of reports with documented acknowledgment within 15 days assessed institutional policy adherence. Time to acknowledgment was compared pre- versus postintervention and postintervention with and without ANCR alerts. Pathologists were surveyed regarding ANCR use and satisfaction.

RESULTS

Acknowledgment within 15 days was documented for 98 of 107 (91.6%) pre- and 89 of 103 (86.4%) postintervention reports (p = 0.2294). Median time to acknowledgment was 7 days (interquartile range [IQR], 3, 11) preintervention and 6 days (IQR, 2, 10) postintervention (p = 0.5083). Postintervention, median time to acknowledgment was 2 days (IQR, 1, 6) for reports with ANCR alerts versus 6 days (IQR, 2.75, 9) for reports without alerts (p = 0.0351). ANCR alerts were sent on 15 of 103 (15%) postintervention reports. All pathologists reported that the ANCR system positively impacted their workflow; 75% (three-fourths) felt that the ANCR system improved efficiency of communicating CSTRs.

CONCLUSION

ANCR expansion to facilitate closed-loop communication of pathology CSTRs was favorably perceived and associated with significant improved time to documented acknowledgment for new malignancies. The rate of adherence to institutional policy did not improve.

The actionable imaging report

The goal of a diagnostic imaging examination is to provide the referring provider with an actionable imaging report that can be used to impart information to determine optimal clinical management for the patient. An actionable imaging report not only conveys the findings of the examination accurately, but does so in a timely and safe manner for an imaging examination that was performed appropriately and using the correct technique. The use of information technology tools has been paramount in improving the value of the imaging report and continues to play a prominent role in this process. The diversity of abdominal imaging, in both the variety of imaging modalities available and the organ systems evaluated, makes it well-suited to adopt these information technology solutions to improve report quality, including increased consistency in reports and in follow-up recommendations. This review discusses the components of the imaging chain involved in optimizing the imaging report with specific emphasis on the role of information technology applications to address the challenges that are frequently encountered. Specific abdominal imaging examples are presented to provide practical guidance and clinical context.

Impact of an electronic alert notification system embedded in radiologists' workflow on closed-loop communication of critical results: a time series analysis

INTRODUCTION

Optimal critical test result communication is a Joint Commission national patient safety goal and requires documentation of closed-loop communication among care providers in the medical record. Electronic alert notification systems can facilitate an auditable process for creating alerts for transmission and acknowledgement of critical test results. We evaluated the impact of a patient safety initiative with an alert notification system on reducing critical results lacking documented communication, and assessed potential overuse of the alerting system for communicating results.

METHODS

We implemented an alert notification system-Alert Notification of Critical Results (ANCR)-in January 2010. We reviewed radiology reports finalised in 2009-2014 which lacked documented communication between the radiologist and another care provider, and assessed the impact of ANCR on the proportion of such reports with critical findings, using trend analysis over 10 semiannual time periods. To evaluate potential overuse of ANCR, we assessed the proportion of reports with non-critical results among provider-communicated reports.

RESULTS

The proportion of reports with critical results among reports without documented communication decreased significantly over 4 years (2009-2014) from 0.19 to 0.05 (p<0.0001, Cochran-Armitage trend test). The proportion of provider-communicated reports with non-critical results remained unchanged over time before and after ANCR implementation (0.20 to 0.15, p=0.45, Cochran-Armitage trend test).

CONCLUSIONS

A patient safety initiative with an alert notification system reduced the proportion of critical results among reports lacking documented communication between care providers. We observed no change in documented communication of non-critical results, suggesting the system did not promote overuse. Future studies are needed to evaluate whether such systems prevent subsequent patient harm.

Does integrating nonurgent, clinically significant radiology alerts within the electronic health record impact closed-loop communication and follow-up?

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether integrating critical result management software--Alert Notification of Critical Results (ANCR)--with an electronic health record (EHR)-based results management application impacts closed-loop communication and follow-up of nonurgent, clinically significant radiology results by primary care providers (PCPs).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This institutional review board-approved study was conducted at a large academic medical center. Postintervention, PCPs could acknowledge nonurgent, clinically significant ANCR-generated alerts ("alerts") within ANCR or the EHR. Primary outcome was the proportion of alerts acknowledged via EHR over a 24-month postintervention. Chart abstractions for a random sample of alerts 12 months preintervention and 24 months postintervention were reviewed, and the follow-up rate of actionable alerts (eg, performing follow-up imaging, administering antibiotics) was estimated. Pre- and postintervention rates were compared using the Fisher exact test. Postintervention follow-up rate was compared for EHR-acknowledged alerts vs ANCR.

RESULTS

Five thousand nine hundred and thirty-one alerts were acknowledged by 171 PCPs, with 100% acknowledgement (consistent with expected ANCR functionality). PCPs acknowledged 16% (688 of 4428) of postintervention alerts in the EHR, with the remaining in ANCR. Follow-up was documented for 85 of 90 (94%; 95% CI, 88%-98%) preintervention and 79 of 84 (94%; 95% CI, 87%-97%) postintervention alerts (P > .99). Postintervention, 11 of 14 (79%; 95% CI, 52%-92%) alerts were acknowledged via EHR and 68 of 70 (97%; 95% CI, 90%-99%) in ANCR had follow-up (P = .03).

CONCLUSIONS

Integrating ANCR and EHR provides an additional workflow for acknowledging nonurgent, clinically significant results without significant change in rates of closed-loop communication or follow-up of alerts.

Linking acknowledgement to action: closing the loop on non-urgent, clinically significant test results in the electronic health record

Failure to follow-up nonurgent, clinically significant test results (CSTRs) is an ambulatory patient safety concern. Tools within electronic health records (EHRs) may facilitate test result acknowledgment, but their utility with regard to nonurgent CSTRs is unclear. We measured use of an acknowledgment tool by 146 primary care physicians (PCPs) at 13 network-affiliated practices that use the same EHR. We then surveyed PCPs to assess use of, satisfaction with, and desired enhancements to the acknowledgment tool. The rate of acknowledgment of non-urgent CSTRs by PCPs was 78%. Of 73 survey respondents, 72 reported taking one or more actions after reviewing a CSTR; fewer (40-75%) reported that using the acknowledgment tool was helpful for a specific purpose. Forty-six (64%) were satisfied with the tool. Both satisfied and nonsatisfied PCPs reported that enhancements linking acknowledgment to routine actions would be useful. EHR vendors should consider enhancements to acknowledgment functionality to ensure follow-up of nonurgent CSTRs.