Dataset Information

"Chasing a Ghost": Factors that Influence Primary Care Physicians to Follow Up on Incidental Imaging Findings.

ABSTRACT: Purpose To explore provider and patient characteristics that influence how primary care providers (PCPs) communicate and manage incidental imaging findings. Materials and Methods This HIPAA-compliant study was approved by the institutional review board. Through semistructured interviews, researchers explored concerns and perspectives of 30 PCPs on receiving and acting on incidental imaging findings. Open-ended questions were designed to elicit a range of responses rather than quantifiable data. Thematic codes were developed and explicitly defined. Three research assistants independently coded all 30 deidentified transcripts and resolved discrepancies (κ = 0.85). Codes pertaining to PCP and patient characteristics were organized into an explanatory model. Results Some PCPs felt compelled but frustrated to pursue costly follow-up for incidental imaging findings of limited clinical importance. Other PCPs did not act on findings that were unfamiliar or occurred in an unusual clinical context when follow-up recommendations were not given; the challenges of researching the clinical importance of these findings or seeking specialist consultation led to inaction. Some PCPs reported using a uniform approach to communicate and manage incidental findings, while others adapted their approach to the patient and the finding. Sometimes PCP characteristics such as follow-up style superseded patient characteristics. At other times patient characteristics such as health literacy superseded PCP characteristics. Conclusion PCPs cited a variety of objective and subjective factors that influence how they communicate and manage incidental imaging findings. These results suggest that some patients may receive inappropriate follow-up of incidental imaging findings and present an opportunity for radiologists to help PCPs and patients to best use the information conveyed in imaging reports. ^© RSNA, 2016 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

SUBMITTER: Zafar HM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5084970 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Importance:Incidental findings on screening and diagnostic tests are common and may prompt cascades of testing and treatment that are of uncertain value. No study to date has examined physician perceptions and experiences of these cascades nationally. Objective:To estimate the national frequency and consequences of cascades of care after incidental findings using a national survey of US physicians. Design, Setting, and Participants:Population-based survey study using data from a 44-item cross-sectional, online survey among 991 practicing US internists in a research panel representative of American College of Physicians national membership. The survey was emailed to panel members on January 22, 2019, and analysis was performed from March 11 to May 27, 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures:Physician report of prior experiences with cascades, features of their most recently experienced cascade, and perception of potential interventions to limit the negative consequences of cascades. Results:This study achieved a 44.7% response rate (376 completed surveys) and weighted responses to be nationally representative. The mean (SE) age of respondents was 43.4 (0.7) years, and 60.4% of respondents were male. Almost all respondents (99.4%; percentages were weighted) reported experiencing cascades, including cascades with clinically important and intervenable outcomes (90.9%) and cascades with no such outcome (94.4%). Physicians reported cascades caused their patients psychological harm (68.4%), physical harm (15.6%), and financial burden (57.5%) and personally caused the physicians wasted time and effort (69.1%), frustration (52.5%), and anxiety (45.4%). When asked about their most recent cascade, 33.7% of 371 respondents reported the test revealing the incidental finding may not have been clinically appropriate. During this most recent cascade, physicians reported that guidelines for follow-up testing were not followed (8.1%) or did not exist to their knowledge (53.2%). To lessen the negative consequences of cascades, 62.8% of 376 respondents chose accessible guidelines and 44.6% chose decision aids as potential solutions. Conclusions and Relevance:The survey findings indicate that almost all respondents had experienced cascades after incidental findings that did not lead to clinically meaningful outcomes yet caused harm to patients and themselves. Policy makers and health care leaders should address cascades after incidental findings as part of efforts to improve health care value and reduce physician burnout.

Project description:ObjectiveTo provide an overview of the evidence on prevalence and outcomes of incidental imaging findings.DesignUmbrella review of systematic reviews.Data sourcesSearches of MEDLINE, EMBASE up to August 2017; screening of references in included papers.Eligibility criteriaCriteria included systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies that gave a prevalence of incidental abnormalities ("incidentalomas"). An incidental imaging finding was defined as an imaging abnormality in a healthy, asymptomatic patient or an imaging abnormality in a symptomatic patient, where the abnormality was not apparently related to the patient's symptoms. Primary studies that measured the prevalence of incidentalomas in patients with a history of malignancy were also considered in sensitivity analyses.Results20 systematic reviews (240 primary studies) were identified from 7098 references from the database search. Fifteen systematic reviews provided data to quantify the prevalence of incidentalomas, whereas 18 provided data to quantify the outcomes of incidentalomas (13 provided both). The prevalence of incidentalomas varied substantially between imaging tests; it was less than 5% for chest computed tomography for incidental pulmonary embolism in patients with and without cancer and whole body positron emission tomography (PET) or PET/computed tomography (for patients with and without cancer). Conversely, incidentalomas occurred in more than a third of images in cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), chest computed tomography (for incidentalomas of thorax, abdomen, spine, or heart), and computed tomography colonoscopy (for extra-colonic incidentalomas). Intermediate rates occurred with MRI of the spine (22%) and brain (22%). The rate of malignancy in incidentalomas varied substantially between organs; the prevalence of malignancy was less than 5% in incidentalomas of the brain, parotid, and adrenal gland. Extra-colonic, prostatic, and colonic incidentalomas were malignant between 10% and 20% of the time, whereas renal, thyroid, and ovarian incidentalomas were malignant around a quarter of the time. Breast incidentalomas had the highest percentage of malignancy (42%, 95% confidence interval 31% to 54%). Many assessments had high between-study heterogeneity (15 of 20 meta-analyses with I2 >50%).ConclusionsThere is large variability across different imaging techniques both in the prevalence of incidentalomas and in the prevalence of malignancy for specific organs. This umbrella review will aid clinicians and patients weigh up the pros and cons of requesting imaging scans and will help with management decisions after an incidentaloma diagnosis. Our results can underpin the creation of guidelines to assist these decisions.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO: CRD42017075679.

Project description:Background: There are limited data on the impact of feedback of incidental findings (IFs) from research imaging. We evaluated the impact of UK Biobank's protocol for handling potentially serious IFs in a multi-modal imaging study of 100,000 participants (radiographer 'flagging' with radiologist confirmation of potentially serious IFs) compared with systematic radiologist review of all images. Methods: Brain, cardiac and body magnetic resonance, and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scans from the first 1000 imaged UK Biobank participants were independently assessed for potentially serious IFs using both protocols. We surveyed participants with potentially serious IFs and their GPs up to six months after imaging to determine subsequent clinical assessments, final diagnoses, emotional, financial and work or activity impacts. Results: Compared to systematic radiologist review, radiographer flagging resulted in substantially fewer participants with potentially serious IFs (179/1000 [17.9%] versus 18/1000 [1.8%]) and a higher proportion with serious final diagnoses (21/179 [11.7%] versus 5/18 [27.8%]). Radiographer flagging missed 16/21 serious final diagnoses (i.e., false negatives), while systematic radiologist review generated large numbers of non-serious final diagnoses (158/179) (i.e., false positives). Almost all (90%) participants had further clinical assessment (including invasive procedures in similar numbers with serious and non-serious final diagnoses [11 and 12 respectively]), with additional impact on emotional wellbeing (16.9%), finances (8.9%), and work or activities (5.6%). Conclusions: Compared with systematic radiologist review, radiographer flagging missed some serious diagnoses, but avoided adverse impacts for many participants with non-serious diagnoses. While systematic radiologist review may benefit some participants, UK Biobank's responsibility to avoid both unnecessary harm to larger numbers of participants and burdening of publicly-funded health services suggests that radiographer flagging is a justifiable approach in the UK Biobank imaging study. The potential scale of non-serious final diagnoses raises questions relating to handling IFs in other settings, such as commercial and public health screening.

Dataset Information

"Chasing a Ghost": Factors that Influence Primary Care Physicians to Follow Up on Incidental Imaging Findings.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure