Trends of Follow-Up Recommendations Made on Musculoskeletal MRI Reports

The Impact of Closed-Loop Imaging on Actionable CT-Detected Breast Findings

PURPOSE

Closed-loop imaging programs (CLIPs) are designed to ensure that patients receive appropriate follow-up, but a review of incidental CT-detected breast findings in the setting of CLIPs has not been performed.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted of CT reports at a single academic institution from July 1, 2020, to January 31, 2022, to identify reports with recommendations for breast imaging follow-up. Medical records were reviewed to evaluate patient adherence to follow-up, CLIP intervention, subsequent BI-RADS assessment, and diagnosis. Adherence was defined as diagnostic breast imaging performed within 6 months of the CT recommendation.

RESULTS

Follow-up recommendations for breast imaging were included in CT report impressions for 311 patients. Almost half of patients (47.3% [147 of 311]) underwent follow-up breast imaging within 6 months, yielding breast cancer diagnoses in 12.9% (19 of 147) and a biopsy-proven positive predictive value of 65.5% (19 of 29). Most patients who returned for follow-up within 6 months did so without CLIP intervention. The majority of CT report impressions in the follow-up group (85.0% [125 of 147]) contained specific recommendations for "diagnostic breast imaging." For patients who did not receive follow-up, the CLIP team tracked all cases and intervened in 19.1% (28 of 147). The most common intervention was a phone call and/or fax to the primary care provider. Outpatient CT examination setting and specific recommendation for diagnostic breast imaging were significantly associated with higher follow-up adherence (P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Actionable CT-detected breast findings require follow-up diagnostic breast imaging because of a relevant cancer detection rate of 12.9%. Although many patients return for breast imaging without intervention, almost half of patients did not receive follow-up and may account for a significant number of missed cancer diagnoses. Specific CT recommendation verbiage is associated with higher follow-up adherence, which can be addressed across settings even without CLIPs.

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.

Predictors of Completion of Clinically Necessary Radiologist-Recommended Follow-Up Imaging: Assessment Using an Automated Closed-Loop Communication and Tracking Tool

BACKGROUND. Patients with adverse social determinants of health may be at increased risk of not completing clinically necessary follow-up imaging. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to use an automated closed-loop communication and tracking tool to identify patient-, referrer-, and imaging-related factors associated with lack of completion of radiologist-recommended follow-up imaging. METHODS. This retrospective study was performed at a single academic health system. A tool for automated communication and tracking of radiologist-recommended follow-up imaging was embedded in the PACS and electronic health record. The tool prompted referrers to record whether they deemed recommendations to be clinically necessary and assessed whether clinically necessary follow-up imaging was pursued. If imaging was not performed within 1 month after the intended completion date, the tool prompted a safety net team to conduct further patient and referrer follow-up. The study included patients for whom a follow-up imaging recommendation deemed clinically necessary by the referrer was entered with the tool from October 21, 2019, through June 30, 2021. The electronic health record was reviewed for documentation of eventual completion of the recommended imaging at the study institution or an outside institution. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with completion of follow-up imaging. RESULTS. Of 5856 recommendations entered during the study period, the referrer agreed with 4881 recommendations in 4599 patients (2929 women, 1670 men; mean age, 61.3 ± 15.6 years), who formed the study sample. Follow-up was completed for 74.8% (3651/4881) of recommendations. Independent predictors of lower likelihood of completing follow-up imaging included living in a socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhood according to the area deprivation index (odds ratio [OR], 0.67 [95% CI, 0.54-0.84]), inpatient (OR, 0.25 [95% CI, 0.20-0.32]) or emergency department (OR, 0.09 [95% CI, 0.05-0.15]) care setting, and referrer surgical specialty (OR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.58-0.84]). Patient age, race and ethnicity, primary language, and insurance status were not independent predictors of completing follow-up (p > .05). CONCLUSION. Socioeconomically disadvantaged patients are at increased risk of not completing recommended follow-up imaging that referrers deem clinically necessary. CLINICAL IMPACT. Initiatives for ensuring completion of follow-up imaging should be aimed at the identified patient groups to reduce disparities in missed and delayed diagnoses.

Tips for Reporting Musculoskeletal Imaging Studies: Lessons Learned

This paper is designed to be read by radiological trainees who are starting out with reporting musculoskeletal imaging studies. Based on the author's experience of over 25 years, it provides tips on how to report musculoskeletal imaging succinctly and effectively using a prose style report.

What does the orthopaedic surgeon want in the radiology report?

Complementary imaging is crucial in the diagnosis and management of the spectrum of Musculoskeletal (MSK) pathologies. Like in all medical specialities, its role in trauma and orthopaedic conditions has evolved. A radiology report following an imaging study should provide an accurate, timely interpretation of images and be presented in a format that allows formal analysis or clarification of a patient's diagnostic dilemma. It is essential that it is descriptive enough to allow clinico-pathological correlation to a patient's condition. A high-quality report follows clinical governance processes, provides clinical feedback, and when appropriate, incorporates advice regarding differential diagnosis or further investigation/management that can be undertaken, permitting the attending clinician to formulate a suitable treatment plan for their patient. In this narrative we explore common radiological investigations and reporting information in trauma and orthopaedic conditions, which would be useful to the attending surgeon.

Facilitating Surveillance of Incidental Findings Using a Novel Reporting Template: Proof of Concept in Patients With Pancreatic Abnormalities

OBJECTIVE

To determine the surveillance impact of utilizing a discrete field in structured radiology reports in patients with incidental pancreatic findings.

METHODS

We implemented a dictation template containing a discrete structured field element to auto-trigger listing of patients with incidental pancreatic findings on a pancreas clinic registry in the electronic health record. We isolated CT and MRI reports with incidental pancreatic findings over a 24-month period. We stratified patients by presence or absence of the discrete field element in reports (flagged versus unflagged) and evaluated the impact of report flagging on likelihood of clinic follow-up, follow-up imaging, endoscopic ultrasound, surgical intervention, genetics referral, obtaining pathologic diagnosis, and time interval between index imaging to various outcomes.

RESULTS

Patients with flagged reports were more likely to be seen or discussed in a pancreas clinic compared with those with unflagged reports (189 of 376, 50.3% versus 79 of 474, 16.7%; P <. 001). Patients with flagged reports were more likely to get follow-up imaging than patients with unflagged reports (188 of 376, 50.0% versus 121 of 474, 25.5%; P < .001) and were more likely to undergo appropriate management of actionable findings compared with patients in the unflagged group (23 of 62, 37.1% versus 28 of 129, 21.7%; P = .036).

DISCUSSION

Implementation of a structured discrete field element for reporting of patients with incidental pancreatic findings had positive impact on surveillance measures and can be applied in other organ systems with established surveillance guidelines to standardize patient care.

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.