Caroline E Sloan1, Seetharam C Chadalavada2, Tessa S Cook2, Curtis P Langlotz2, Mitchell D Schnall2, Hanna M Zafar2. 1. Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Department of Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Electronic address: csloan@mail.med.upenn.edu. 2. Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Department of Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Abstract
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To understand the reasons leading to potentially inappropriate management of imaging findings concerning for malignancy and identify optimal methods for communicating these findings to providers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified all abdominal imaging examinations with findings of possible cancer performed on six randomly selected days in August to December 2013. Electronic medical records (EMR) of one patient group were reviewed 3 months after the index examination to determine whether management was appropriate (completed follow-up or documented reason for no follow-up) or potentially inappropriate (no follow-up or no documented reason). Providers of a second patient group were contacted 5-6 days after imaging examinations to determine notification preferences. RESULTS: Among 43 patients in the first group, five (12%) received potentially inappropriate management. Reasons included patient loss to follow-up and provider failure to review imaging results, document known imaging findings, or communicate findings to providers outside the health system. Among 16 providers caring for patients in the second group, 33% were unaware of the findings, 75% preferred to be notified of abnormal findings via e-mail or EMR, 56% wanted an embedded hyperlink enabling immediate follow-up order entry, and only 25% had a system to monitor whether patients had completed ordered testing. CONCLUSIONS: One in eight patients did not receive potentially necessary follow-up care within 3 months of imaging findings of possible cancer. Automated notification of imaging findings and follow-up monitoring not only is desired by providers but can also address many of the reasons we found for inappropriate management.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To understand the reasons leading to potentially inappropriate management of imaging findings concerning for malignancy and identify optimal methods for communicating these findings to providers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified all abdominal imaging examinations with findings of possible cancer performed on six randomly selected days in August to December 2013. Electronic medical records (EMR) of one patient group were reviewed 3 months after the index examination to determine whether management was appropriate (completed follow-up or documented reason for no follow-up) or potentially inappropriate (no follow-up or no documented reason). Providers of a second patient group were contacted 5-6 days after imaging examinations to determine notification preferences. RESULTS: Among 43 patients in the first group, five (12%) received potentially inappropriate management. Reasons included patient loss to follow-up and provider failure to review imaging results, document known imaging findings, or communicate findings to providers outside the health system. Among 16 providers caring for patients in the second group, 33% were unaware of the findings, 75% preferred to be notified of abnormal findings via e-mail or EMR, 56% wanted an embedded hyperlink enabling immediate follow-up order entry, and only 25% had a system to monitor whether patients had completed ordered testing. CONCLUSIONS: One in eight patients did not receive potentially necessary follow-up care within 3 months of imaging findings of possible cancer. Automated notification of imaging findings and follow-up monitoring not only is desired by providers but can also address many of the reasons we found for inappropriate management.
Authors: Anuj K Dalal; Jeffrey L Schnipper; Eric G Poon; Deborah H Williams; Kathleen Rossi-Roh; Allison Macleay; Catherine L Liang; Nyryan Nolido; Jonas Budris; David W Bates; Christopher L Roy Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2012-01-19 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Eric G Poon; Allen Kachalia; Ann Louise Puopolo; Tejal K Gandhi; David M Studdert Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2012-05-19 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Elizabeth A Dupuis; Hilary F White; Daniel Newman; Jerome E Sobieraj; Manjusha Gokhale; Karen M Freund Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2010-03-04 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Anuj K Dalal; Christopher L Roy; Eric G Poon; Deborah H Williams; Nyryan Nolido; Cathy Yoon; Jonas Budris; Tejal Gandhi; David W Bates; Jeffrey L Schnipper Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2013-10-23 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Linda L Humphrey; Jackilen Shannon; Melissa R Partin; Jean O'Malley; Zunqiu Chen; Mark Helfand Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2011-02-15 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Traber Davis Giardina; Beth J King; Aartee P Ignaczak; Douglas E Paull; Laura Hoeksema; Peter D Mills; Julia Neily; Robin R Hemphill; Hardeep Singh Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Charlotte J Verberne; Cornelis H Nijboer; Geertruida H de Bock; Irene Grossmann; Theo Wiggers; Klaas Havenga Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2012-03-05 Impact factor: 2.796
Authors: Stacy D O'Connor; Anuj K Dalal; V Anik Sahni; Ronilda Lacson; Ramin Khorasani Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2015-09-02 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Elizabeth H Dibble; David W Swenson; Cynthia Cobb; Timothy J Paul; Andrew E Karn; David C Portelli; Jonathan S Movson Journal: Emerg Radiol Date: 2016-10-14
Authors: Hanna M Zafar; Seetharam C Chadalavada; Charles E Kahn; Tessa S Cook; Caroline E Sloan; Darco Lalevic; Curtis P Langlotz; Mitchell D Schnall Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2015-06-27 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Sandeep Dalal; Vadiraj Hombal; Wei-Hung Weng; Gabe Mankovich; Thusitha Mabotuwana; Christopher S Hall; Joseph Fuller; Bruce E Lehnert; Martin L Gunn Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2020-02 Impact factor: 4.056