Adam Min1, Vivian W Y Chan2, Ruben Aristizabal2, Ed R Peramaki3, David B Agulnik4, Nardia Strydom5, Damon Ramsey6, Bruce B Forster7. 1. Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. Electronic address: a.min@alumni.ubc.ca. 2. Vancouver Coastal Health, Vancouver, BC, Canada. 3. Department of Radiology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada; St Paul's Hospital, Vancouver, BC, Canada. 4. Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. 5. Department of Family Practice, Providence Health Care, Vancouver, BC. 6. Department of Family Practice, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC. 7. Department of Radiology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada; Vancouver General Hospital, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine whether point-of-care clinical decision support can effectively reduce inappropriate medical imaging of patients who present to the emergency department (ED) with low-back pain (LBP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a prospective, single-center study of lumbar imaging referrals made by 43 emergency physicians at a major acute care center. Each physician saw at least 10 LBP cases in both pre- and post-intervention periods. A point-of-care checklist of accepted red flags for LBP was designed by a working group of physicians and embedded in the computerized order entry form for lumbar imaging. We compared imaging rates of LBP and physician variation in imaging ordering before and after the implementation of the checklist. We then measured the potential harms of reduced imaging. RESULTS: After intervention, the proportion of LBP patients with an imaging order fell significantly (median: 22% to 17%; mean: 23% to 18%; P = .0002) compared with pre-intervention baseline. The percentage of patients without imaging who were later imaged at a hospital outpatient clinic within 30 days was 2.3% before intervention and 2.2% after (P = .974). In addition, the proportion of patients discharged from the ED without imaging who returned to the ED within 30 days was 8.2% before intervention and 6.9% after (P = .170). One minor thoracic spine compression fracture was missed, but management was not impacted. No serious diagnoses were missed. CONCLUSION: Clinical decision support integrated in electronic order entry forms can safely and effectively reduce imaging orders for LBP patients in the ED.
PURPOSE: To determine whether point-of-care clinical decision support can effectively reduce inappropriate medical imaging of patients who present to the emergency department (ED) with low-back pain (LBP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a prospective, single-center study of lumbar imaging referrals made by 43 emergency physicians at a major acute care center. Each physician saw at least 10 LBP cases in both pre- and post-intervention periods. A point-of-care checklist of accepted red flags for LBP was designed by a working group of physicians and embedded in the computerized order entry form for lumbar imaging. We compared imaging rates of LBP and physician variation in imaging ordering before and after the implementation of the checklist. We then measured the potential harms of reduced imaging. RESULTS: After intervention, the proportion of LBP patients with an imaging order fell significantly (median: 22% to 17%; mean: 23% to 18%; P = .0002) compared with pre-intervention baseline. The percentage of patients without imaging who were later imaged at a hospital outpatient clinic within 30 days was 2.3% before intervention and 2.2% after (P = .974). In addition, the proportion of patients discharged from the ED without imaging who returned to the ED within 30 days was 8.2% before intervention and 6.9% after (P = .170). One minor thoracic spine compression fracture was missed, but management was not impacted. No serious diagnoses were missed. CONCLUSION: Clinical decision support integrated in electronic order entry forms can safely and effectively reduce imaging orders for LBP patients in the ED.
Authors: Brian W Patterson; Michael S Pulia; Shashank Ravi; Peter L T Hoonakker; Ann Schoofs Hundt; Douglas Wiegmann; Emily J Wirkus; Stephen Johnson; Pascale Carayon Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2019-01-03 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Andrea Pike; Andrea Patey; Rebecca Lawrence; Kris Aubrey-Bassler; Jeremy Grimshaw; Sameh Mortazhejri; Shawn Dowling; Yamile Jasaui; Amanda Hall Journal: BMC Prim Care Date: 2022-06-03
Authors: Gregory N Kawchuk; Jacob Aaskov; Matthew Mohler; Justin Lowes; Maureen Kruhlak; Stephanie Couperthwaite; Esther H Yang; Cristina Villa-Roel; Brian H Rowe Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-05-10 Impact factor: 3.752
Authors: Daniel L Belavy; Scott D Tagliaferri; Paul Buntine; Tobias Saueressig; Kate Sadler; Christy Ko; Clint T Miller; Patrick J Owen Journal: EClinicalMedicine Date: 2022-01-03
Authors: Amanda Hall; Helen Richmond; Andrea Pike; Rebecca Lawrence; Holly Etchegary; Michelle Swab; Jacqueline Y Thompson; Charlotte Albury; Jill Hayden; Andrea M Patey; James Matthews Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2021-07-02 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Reema Harrison; Reece Amr Hinchcliff; Elizabeth Manias; Steven Mears; David Heslop; Victoria Walton; Ru Kwedza Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2020-01-16 Impact factor: 2.655