Literature DB >> 25179562

Assessment of follow-up completeness and notification preferences for imaging findings of possible cancer: what happens after radiologists submit their reports?

Caroline E Sloan1, Seetharam C Chadalavada2, Tessa S Cook2, Curtis P Langlotz2, Mitchell D Schnall2, Hanna M Zafar2.   

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.
Copyright © 2014 AUR. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Follow-up; communication; continuity of patient care; physician practice patterns

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25179562      PMCID: PMC4825815          DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2014.07.006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acad Radiol        ISSN: 1076-6332            Impact factor:   3.173


  32 in total

1.  Impact of automated alerts on follow-up of post-discharge microbiology results: a cluster randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Robert El-Kareh; Christopher Roy; Deborah H Williams; Eric G Poon
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2012-01-26       Impact factor: 5.128

2.  ACR members' response to JACR white paper on the management of incidental abdominal CT findings.

Authors:  Lincoln L Berland; Stuart G Silverman; Alec J Megibow; William W Mayo-Smith
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2013-10-15       Impact factor: 5.532

3.  Design and implementation of an automated email notification system for results of tests pending at discharge.

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

Review 4.  Failure to follow-up test results for ambulatory patients: a systematic review.

Authors:  Joanne L Callen; Johanna I Westbrook; Andrew Georgiou; Julie Li
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2011-12-20       Impact factor: 5.128

5.  Cognitive errors and logistical breakdowns contributing to missed and delayed diagnoses of breast and colorectal cancers: a process analysis of closed malpractice claims.

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

6.  Tracking abnormal cervical cancer screening: evaluation of an EMR-based intervention.

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

7.  Impact of an automated email notification system for results of tests pending at discharge: a cluster-randomized controlled trial.

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

8.  Improving the follow-up of positive hemoccult screening tests: an electronic intervention.

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

9.  Root cause analysis reports help identify common factors in delayed diagnosis and treatment of outpatients.

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

10.  Evaluation of the use of decision-support software in carcino-embryonic antigen (CEA)-based follow-up of patients with colorectal cancer.

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

View more
  6 in total

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

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

2.  Improving Quality of Follow-Up Imaging Recommendations in Radiology.

Authors:  Thusitha Mabotuwana; Christopher S Hall; Joel Tieder; Martin L Gunn
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2018-04-16

3.  The RADCAT-3 system for closing the loop on important non-urgent radiology findings: a multidisciplinary system-wide approach.

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

4.  Code Abdomen: An Assessment Coding Scheme for Abdominal Imaging Findings Possibly Representing Cancer.

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

5.  Determining Follow-Up Imaging Study Using Radiology Reports.

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

6.  Assessment of the Response to Abdominal and Pelvic Computed Tomography Report Recommendations: A Single-Center, Retrospective, Chart Review Study.

Authors:  Shaza Alsharif; Ghalib Alasaad; Mohammed K Bukhari; Abdulaziz Sharkar; Mohammed Altaf; Shaymaa Milibari; Roaa Alsulimani; Khalid M Alshamrani
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2022-01-13
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.