Dataset Information

Effect of clinical decision rules, patient cost and malpractice information on clinician brain CT image ordering: a randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:The frequency of head computed tomography (CT) imaging for mild head trauma patients has raised safety and cost concerns. Validated clinical decision rules exist in the published literature and on-line sources to guide medical image ordering but are often not used by emergency department (ED) clinicians. Using simulation, we explored whether the presentation of a clinical decision rule (i.e. Canadian CT Head Rule - CCHR), findings from malpractice cases related to clinicians not ordering CT imaging in mild head trauma cases, and estimated patient out-of-pocket cost might influence clinician brain CT ordering. Understanding what type and how information may influence clinical decision making in the ordering advanced medical imaging is important in shaping the optimal design and implementation of related clinical decision support systems. METHODS:Multi-center, double-blinded simulation-based randomized controlled trial. Following standardized clinical vignette presentation, clinicians made an initial imaging decision for the patient. This was followed by additional information on decision support rules, malpractice outcome review, and patient cost; each with opportunity to modify their initial order. The malpractice and cost information differed by assigned group to test the any temporal relationship. The simulation closed with a second vignette and an imaging decision. RESULTS:One hundred sixteen of the 167 participants (66.9%) initially ordered a brain CT scan. After CCHR presentation, the number of clinicians ordering a CT dropped to 76 (45.8%), representing a 21.1% reduction in CT ordering (P?=?0.002). This reduction in CT ordering was maintained, in comparison to initial imaging orders, when presented with malpractice review information (p?=?0.002) and patient cost information (p?=?0.002). About 57% of clinicians changed their order during study, while 43% never modified their imaging order. CONCLUSION:This study suggests that ED clinician brain CT imaging decisions may be influenced by clinical decision support rules, patient out-of-pocket cost information and findings from malpractice case review. TRIAL REGISTRATION:NCT03449862 , February 27, 2018, Retrospectively registered.

SUBMITTER: Gimbel RW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5848437 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effect of clinical decision rules, patient cost and malpractice information on clinician brain CT image ordering: a randomized controlled trial.

Gimbel Ronald W RW Pirrallo Ronald G RG Lowe Steven C SC Wright David W DW Zhang Lu L Woo Min-Jae MJ Fontelo Paul P Liu Fang F Connor Zachary Z

BMC medical informatics and decision making 20180312 1

<h4>Background</h4>The frequency of head computed tomography (CT) imaging for mild head trauma patients has raised safety and cost concerns. Validated clinical decision rules exist in the published literature and on-line sources to guide medical image ordering but are often not used by emergency department (ED) clinicians. Using simulation, we explored whether the presentation of a clinical decision rule (i.e. Canadian CT Head Rule - CCHR), findings from malpractice cases related to clinicians n ...[more]

PMID: 29530029

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAlthough research findings consistently find poor communication about medical procedures to be a key predictor of patient complaints, compensation claims, and malpractice lawsuits ("complaints"), there is insufficient evidence to determine if greater patient involvement could actually affect the inclination to complain.ObjectivesWe conducted an experimental case vignette survey that explores whether greater patient involvement in decision-making is likely to influence the intention to complain given different decisions and consequences.MethodsRandomized, national case vignette survey with various levels of patient involvement, decisions, and outcomes in a representative Danish sample of men. We used prostate specific antigen (PSA) screening in men aged 45 to 70 years as the intervention illustrated in 30 different versions of a mock clinical encounter. Versions differed in the amount of patient involvement, the decision made (PSA test or no PSA test), and the clinical outcomes (no cancer detected, detection of treatable cancer, and detection of non-treatable cancer). We measured respondents' inclination to complain about care in response to the scenarios on a 5-point Likert scale (from 1: very unlikely to 5: very likely).ResultsThe response rate was 30% (6,756 of 22,288). Across all scenarios, the likelihood of complaint increased if the clinical outcome was poor (untreatable cancer). Compared with scenarios that involved shared decision-making (SDM), neutral information, or nudging in favor of screening, the urge to complain increased if the patient was excluded from decision-making or if the doctor had nudged the patient to decline screening (mean Likert differences .12 to .16, p < .001). With neutral involvement or nudging in favor of intervention, the desire to complain depended highly on the decision reached and on the patient's course. This dependence was smaller with SDM.ConclusionsGreater patient involvement in decision-making appears to be associated with less intention to complain about health care, with SDM resulting in the greatest reduction in complaint likelihood.

Project description:Clinicians who order unnecessary radiographic imaging may cause financial harm to patients who have increasing levels of cost sharing. Clinician predictors of low-value imaging are largely unknown.To characterize clinician predictors of low-value imaging for acute uncomplicated back pain and headache, including clinicians who saw both conditions.Multivariate logistic regression modeling of imaging rates after acute uncomplicated back pain and headache visits as indicated by January 2010 to December 2014 commercial insurance claims and demographic data from a large US health insurer. Participants included 100?977 clinicians (primary care physicians, specialist physicians, and chiropractors).Imaging after acute uncomplicated back pain and headache visits was recorded. We identified whether the clinician's prior patient received imaging, whether the clinician was an owner of imaging equipment, and the varying impact by clinician specialty. We then used high rates of low-value back imaging as a predictor for low-value headache imaging.Clinicians conducted 1?007?392 visits for 878?720 adults ages 18 to 64 years with acute uncomplicated back pain; 52?876 primary care physicians conducted visits for 492?805 adults ages 18 to 64 years with acute uncomplicated headache; 34?190 primary care clinicians conducted 405?721 visits for 344?991 adults ages 18 to 64 years with headache and had also conducted at least 4 visits from patients with back pain. If a primary care physician's prior patient received low-value back imaging, the patient had 1.81 higher odds of low-value imaging (95% CI, 1.77-1.85). This practice effect was larger for chiropractors (odds ratio [OR], 2.80; 95% CI, 2.74-2.86) and specialists (OR, 2.98; 95% CI, 2.88-3.07). For headache, a prior low-value head image predicted 2.00 higher odds of a subsequent head imaging order (95% CI, 1.95-2.06). Clinician ownership of imaging equipment was a consistent independent predictor of low-value imaging (OR, 1.65-7.76) across clinician type and imaging scenario. Primary care physicians with the highest rates of low-value back imaging also had 1.53 (95% CI, 1.45-1.61) higher odds of ordering low-value headache imaging.Clinician characteristics such as ordering low-value imaging on a prior patient, high rates of low-value imaging in another clinical scenario, and ownership of imaging equipment are strong predictors of low-value back and headache imaging. Findings should inform policies that target potentially unnecessary and financially burdensome care.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The provision of psychometrically valid patient reported outcomes (PROs) improves patient outcomes and reflects their quality of life. Consequently, ad hoc clinician-generated questionnaires of the past are being replaced by more rigorous instruments. This change, while beneficial, risks the loss/orphaning of decades-long information on difficult to capture/chronically ill populations. The goal of this study was to assess to the quality of data retrieved from these legacy questionnaires. METHODS:Participants included 8563 patients who generated a total of 12,626 hospital admissions over the 2004-2014 study period. Items used to screen for issues related to function, mood, symptoms, and social support among patients with chronic disease were identified in our medical center's patient information questionnaire. Cluster and exploratory factor analyses (EFA) followed by multidimensional item response theory (MIRT) analyses were used to select items that defined factors. Scores were derived with summation and MIRT approaches; inter-factor relationships and relationships of factor scores to assigned diagnostic codes were assessed. Rasch analyses assessed the constructs' measurement properties. RESULTS:Literature review and clinician interviews yielded four hypothesized constructs: psychological distress/wellbeing, symptom burden, social support, and physical function. Rasch analyses showed that, while all had good measurement properties, only one, function, separated individuals well. In exploratory factor analyses (EFA), 11 factors representing depression, respiratory symptoms, musculoskeletal pain, family support, mobility, activities of daily living, alcohol consumption, weight loss, fatigue, neurological disorders, and fear at home were identified. Based on the agreement between EFA and cluster analyses as well as Cronbach's alpha, six domains were retained for analyses. Correlations were strong between activities of daily living and mobility (.84), and moderate between pain and mobility (.37) and psychological distress (.59) Known-group validity was supported from the relationships between factor scores and the relevant diagnostic code assignments (.12 to .20). CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION:Items from ad hoc clinician-generated patient information questionnaires can be aggregated into valid factors that assess supportive care domains among chronically ill patients. However, the binary response options offered by many screening items limit their information content and consequently, as highlighted by Rasch analyses, their ability to meaningfully discriminate trait levels in these populations.

Project description:ImportanceAs the clinic day progresses, clinicians may fall behind schedule and experience decision fatigue. However, the association of time of day with cancer screening rates is unknown.ObjectiveTo evaluate the association of primary care clinic appointment time with clinician ordering and patient completion of breast and colorectal cancer screening.Design, setting, and participantsRetrospective, quality improvement study of 33 primary care practices in Pennsylvania and New Jersey from September 1, 2014, to August 31, 2016. Participants included adults eligible for breast or colorectal cancer screening. Data analysis was conducted from April 24, 2018, to November 8, 2018.ExposuresClinic appointment time during each patient's first primary care physician visit in the study period.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcome was clinician ordering of the screening test during the visit. Secondary outcome was patient completion of the tests within 1 year of the visit.ResultsAmong the 19 254 patients eligible for breast cancer screening, the mean (SD) age was 60.2 (6.9) years; 19 254 (100%) were female, 11 682 (60.7%) were white, and 5495 (28.5%) were black. Screening test order rates were highest at 8 am at 63.7%, decreased throughout the morning to 48.7% at 11 am, increased to 56.2% at noon, and then decreased to 47.8% at 5 pm (adjusted odds ratio [OR] for overall trend, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.93-0.96; P < .001). Trends in screening test completion rates were similar beginning at 33.2% at 8 am and decreasing to 17.8% at 5 pm (adjusted OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.94-0.97; P < .001). Among the 33 468 patients eligible for colorectal cancer screening, the mean (SD) age was 59.6 (7.4) years; 18 672 (55.8%) were female, 22 157 (66.2%) were white, and 7296 (21.8%) were black. Screening test order rates were 36.5% at 8 am, decreased to 31.3% by 11 am, increased at noon to 34.4%, and then decreased to 23.4% at 5 pm (adjusted OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.93-0.95; P < .001). Trends in screening test completion rates were similar beginning at 28.0% at 8 am and decreasing to 17.8% at 5 pm (adjusted OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.96-0.98; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceClinician ordering of cancer screening tests significantly decreased as the clinic day progressed. Patient completion of cancer screening tests within 1 year of the visit was also lower as the primary care appointment time was later in the day. Future interventions targeting improvements in cancer screening should consider how time of day may influence these behaviors.

Dataset Information

Effect of clinical decision rules, patient cost and malpractice information on clinician brain CT image ordering: a randomized controlled trial.

Publications

Effect of clinical decision rules, patient cost and malpractice information on clinician brain CT image ordering: a randomized controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure