Denitza P Blagev1, James F Lloyd2, Karen Conner3, Justin Dickerson4, Daniel Adams4, Scott M Stevens5, Scott C Woller5, R Scott Evans2, C Gregory Elliott5. 1. Department of Medicine, Intermountain Medical Center, Murray, Utah; Department of Medicine, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah. Electronic address: denitza.blagev@imail.org. 2. Intermountain Health Care Medical Informatics, Salt Lake City, Utah. 3. Department of Radiology, Intermountain Medical Center, Salt Lake City, Utah. 4. Department of Medicine, Intermountain Medical Center, Murray, Utah. 5. Department of Medicine, Intermountain Medical Center, Murray, Utah; Department of Medicine, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Incidental pulmonary nodules that require follow-up are often noted on chest CT. Evidence-based guidelines regarding appropriate follow-up have been published, but the rate of adherence to guideline recommendations is unknown. Furthermore, it is unknown whether the radiology report affects the nodule follow-up rate. METHODS: A review of 1,000 CT pulmonary angiographic studies ordered in the emergency department was performed to determine the presence of an incidental pulmonary nodule. Fleischner Society guidelines were applied to ascertain if follow-up was recommended. Radiology reports were classified on the basis of whether nodules were listed in the findings section only, were noted in the impression section, or had explicit recommendations for follow-up. Whether the rate of nodule follow-up was affected by the radiology report was determined according to these 3 groups. RESULTS: Incidental pulmonary nodules that required follow-up were noted on 9.9% (95% confidence interval, 8%-12%) of CT pulmonary angiographic studies. Follow-up for nodules was poor overall (29% [28 of 96]; 95% confidence interval, 20%-38%) and decreased significantly when the nodules were mentioned in the findings section only (0% [0 of 12]). Specific instructions to follow up nodules in radiology reports still resulted in a low follow-up rate of 29% (19 of 65; 95% confidence interval, 18%-40%). CONCLUSIONS: Incidental pulmonary nodules detected on CT pulmonary angiography are common and are frequently not followed up appropriately. Although the inclusion of a pulmonary nodule in the impression section of a radiology report is helpful, it does not ensure follow-up. Better systems for appropriate identification and follow-up of incidental findings are needed.
PURPOSE: Incidental pulmonary nodules that require follow-up are often noted on chest CT. Evidence-based guidelines regarding appropriate follow-up have been published, but the rate of adherence to guideline recommendations is unknown. Furthermore, it is unknown whether the radiology report affects the nodule follow-up rate. METHODS: A review of 1,000 CT pulmonary angiographic studies ordered in the emergency department was performed to determine the presence of an incidental pulmonary nodule. Fleischner Society guidelines were applied to ascertain if follow-up was recommended. Radiology reports were classified on the basis of whether nodules were listed in the findings section only, were noted in the impression section, or had explicit recommendations for follow-up. Whether the rate of nodule follow-up was affected by the radiology report was determined according to these 3 groups. RESULTS: Incidental pulmonary nodules that required follow-up were noted on 9.9% (95% confidence interval, 8%-12%) of CT pulmonary angiographic studies. Follow-up for nodules was poor overall (29% [28 of 96]; 95% confidence interval, 20%-38%) and decreased significantly when the nodules were mentioned in the findings section only (0% [0 of 12]). Specific instructions to follow up nodules in radiology reports still resulted in a low follow-up rate of 29% (19 of 65; 95% confidence interval, 18%-40%). CONCLUSIONS: Incidental pulmonary nodules detected on CT pulmonary angiography are common and are frequently not followed up appropriately. Although the inclusion of a pulmonary nodule in the impression section of a radiology report is helpful, it does not ensure follow-up. Better systems for appropriate identification and follow-up of incidental findings are needed.
Authors: Henal Motiwala; Itisha Bansal; Pradeep Goyal; Olena Dorokhova; Yogesh Kumar; Thomas D Olsavsky; Albert DiMeo; Nishant Gupta Journal: Transl Lung Cancer Res Date: 2017-06
Authors: Manan Shah; Derek Shu; V B Surya Prasath; Yizhao Ni; Andrew H Schapiro; Kevin R Dufendach Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2021-09-08 Impact factor: 2.762