Dipayan Chaudhuri1, Alison Montgomery1, Karen Gulenchyn1, Morgan Mitchell1, Philip Joseph2. 1. Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine (D.C.), Departments of Medicine (A.M., K.G., P.J.), Radiology (A.M., K.G., P.J.), Faculty of Science (M.M.), and Population Health Research Institute (P.J.), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. 2. Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine (D.C.), Departments of Medicine (A.M., K.G., P.J.), Radiology (A.M., K.G., P.J.), Faculty of Science (M.M.), and Population Health Research Institute (P.J.), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. philip.joseph@phri.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Between 5% and 25% of cardiac imaging tests are performed for inappropriate indications. Studies have examined the impact of appropriate use criteria-based quality improvement initiatives on inappropriate testing, but they have not been systematically evaluated. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a systematic review of studies evaluating quality improvement initiatives aimed at reducing inappropriate cardiac imaging. The primary outcome was the proportion of inappropriate tests based on appropriate use criteria. Studies were analyzed using a random effects meta-analysis model, and heterogeneity was examined using subgroup analyses. We identified 6 observational studies and 1 randomized control trial. Most interventions (n=6) had a formal education component, and 5 included a mechanism for physician audit and feedback. Although these interventions were associated with lower odds of inappropriate testing (odds ratio, 0.44 [95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.61]; P<0.001), significant heterogeneity was observed (I(2)=70%), which was best explained by the utilization of physician audit and feedback. Interventions that employed physician audit and feedback were associated with significantly lower odds of inappropriate testing (odds ratio, 0.36 [95% confidence interval, 0.31-0.41]; P<0.001; I(2)=0%), whereas those that did not had no effect (odds ratio, 0.89 [95% confidence interval, 0.61-1.29]; P=0.51; I(2)=0%; P value for difference <0.001). All studies had potential sources of bias that could have affected the observed estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions using physician audit and feedback are associated with lower odds of inappropriate cardiac testing. Further research is needed to evaluate a greater diversity of intervention types, with improved study designs.
BACKGROUND: Between 5% and 25% of cardiac imaging tests are performed for inappropriate indications. Studies have examined the impact of appropriate use criteria-based quality improvement initiatives on inappropriate testing, but they have not been systematically evaluated. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a systematic review of studies evaluating quality improvement initiatives aimed at reducing inappropriate cardiac imaging. The primary outcome was the proportion of inappropriate tests based on appropriate use criteria. Studies were analyzed using a random effects meta-analysis model, and heterogeneity was examined using subgroup analyses. We identified 6 observational studies and 1 randomized control trial. Most interventions (n=6) had a formal education component, and 5 included a mechanism for physician audit and feedback. Although these interventions were associated with lower odds of inappropriate testing (odds ratio, 0.44 [95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.61]; P<0.001), significant heterogeneity was observed (I(2)=70%), which was best explained by the utilization of physician audit and feedback. Interventions that employed physician audit and feedback were associated with significantly lower odds of inappropriate testing (odds ratio, 0.36 [95% confidence interval, 0.31-0.41]; P<0.001; I(2)=0%), whereas those that did not had no effect (odds ratio, 0.89 [95% confidence interval, 0.61-1.29]; P=0.51; I(2)=0%; P value for difference <0.001). All studies had potential sources of bias that could have affected the observed estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions using physician audit and feedback are associated with lower odds of inappropriate cardiac testing. Further research is needed to evaluate a greater diversity of intervention types, with improved study designs.
Authors: R Sacha Bhatia; Zachary Bouck; Noah M Ivers; Graham Mecredy; Jasjit Singh; Ciara Pendrith; Dennis T Ko; Danielle Martin; Harindra C Wijeysundera; Jack V Tu; Lynn Wilson; Kimberly Wintemute; Paul Dorian; Joshua Tepper; Peter C Austin; Richard H Glazier; Wendy Levinson Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2017-09-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: B J Bouma; R Riezenbos; A J Voogel; M H Veldhorst; W Jaarsma; J Hrudova; B Cernohorsky; S Chamuleau; R B A van den Brink; R Breedveld; C Reichert; O Kamp; R Braam; J P van Melle Journal: Neth Heart J Date: 2017-05 Impact factor: 2.380
Authors: Benjamin Leis; Idris Bare; Kirsten Marshall; Elise Buschau; Lori Penner; Cassandra Keith; J S De Villiers; Jason Orvold Journal: CJC Open Date: 2020-12-11
Authors: Eric J Keller; Robert L Vogelzang; Benjamin H Freed; James C Carr; Jeremy D Collins Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2016-08-26 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: James M DuBois; John T Chibnall; Emily E Anderson; Heidi A Walsh; Michelle Eggers; Kari Baldwin; Kelly K Dineen Journal: Patient Saf Surg Date: 2017-12-18
Authors: Zachary Bouck; Jacob Ferguson; Noah M Ivers; Eve A Kerr; Kaveh G Shojania; Min Kim; Peter Cram; Ciara Pendrith; Graham C Mecredy; Richard H Glazier; Joshua Tepper; Peter C Austin; Danielle Martin; Wendy Levinson; R Sacha Bhatia Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2018-10-05