Ronilda Lacson1, Michael J Healey2, Laila R Cochon3, Romeo Laroya3, Keith D Hentel4, Adam B Landman5, Sunil Eappen6, Giles W Boland7, Ramin Khorasani7. 1. Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. Electronic address: rlacson@rics.bwh.harvard.edu. 2. Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 4. Department of Radiology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York. 5. Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Department of Emergency Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 6. Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Department of Anesthesiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 7. Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of unscheduled radiologic examination orders in an electronic health record, and the proportion of unscheduled orders that are clinically necessary, by modality. METHODS: This retrospective study was conducted from January to October 2016 at an academic institution. All unscheduled radiologic examination orders were retrieved for seven modalities (CT, MR, ultrasound, obstetric ultrasound, bone densitometry, mammography, and fluoroscopy). After excluding duplicates, 100 randomly selected orders from each modality were assigned to two physician reviewers who classified their clinical necessity, with 10% overlap. Interannotator agreement was assessed using κ statistics, the percentage of clinically necessary unscheduled orders was compared, and χ2 analysis was used to assess differences by modality. RESULTS: A total 494,503 radiologic examination orders were placed during the study period. After exclusions, 33,546 unscheduled orders were identified, 7% of all radiologic examination orders. Among 700 reviewed unscheduled orders, agreement was substantial (κ = 0.63). Eighty-seven percent of bone densitometric examinations and sixty-five percent of mammographic studies were considered clinically necessary, primarily for follow-up management. The majority of orders in each modality were clinically necessary, except for CT, obstetric ultrasound, and fluoroscopy (P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Large numbers of radiologic examination orders remain unscheduled in the electronic health record. A substantial portion are clinically necessary, representing potential delays in executing documented provider care plans. Clinically unnecessary unscheduled orders may inadvertently be scheduled and performed. Identifying and performing clinically necessary unscheduled radiologic examination orders may help reduce diagnostic errors related to diagnosis and treatment delays and enhance patient safety, while eliminating clinically unnecessary unscheduled orders will help avoid unneeded testing.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of unscheduled radiologic examination orders in an electronic health record, and the proportion of unscheduled orders that are clinically necessary, by modality. METHODS: This retrospective study was conducted from January to October 2016 at an academic institution. All unscheduled radiologic examination orders were retrieved for seven modalities (CT, MR, ultrasound, obstetric ultrasound, bone densitometry, mammography, and fluoroscopy). After excluding duplicates, 100 randomly selected orders from each modality were assigned to two physician reviewers who classified their clinical necessity, with 10% overlap. Interannotator agreement was assessed using κ statistics, the percentage of clinically necessary unscheduled orders was compared, and χ2 analysis was used to assess differences by modality. RESULTS: A total 494,503 radiologic examination orders were placed during the study period. After exclusions, 33,546 unscheduled orders were identified, 7% of all radiologic examination orders. Among 700 reviewed unscheduled orders, agreement was substantial (κ = 0.63). Eighty-seven percent of bone densitometric examinations and sixty-five percent of mammographic studies were considered clinically necessary, primarily for follow-up management. The majority of orders in each modality were clinically necessary, except for CT, obstetric ultrasound, and fluoroscopy (P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Large numbers of radiologic examination orders remain unscheduled in the electronic health record. A substantial portion are clinically necessary, representing potential delays in executing documented provider care plans. Clinically unnecessary unscheduled orders may inadvertently be scheduled and performed. Identifying and performing clinically necessary unscheduled radiologic examination orders may help reduce diagnostic errors related to diagnosis and treatment delays and enhance patient safety, while eliminating clinically unnecessary unscheduled orders will help avoid unneeded testing.
Authors: Ivan K Ip; Louise I Schneider; Richard Hanson; Dana Marchello; Patricia Hultman; Michael Viera; Brian Chiango; Katherine P Andriole; Andrew Menard; Susan Schade; Steven E Seltzer; Ramin Khorasani Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Ashish K Jha; David C Chan; Abigail B Ridgway; Calvin Franz; David W Bates Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2009 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Martine Remy-Jardin; Massimo Pistolesi; Lawrence R Goodman; Warren B Gefter; Alexander Gottschalk; John R Mayo; H Dirk Sostman Journal: Radiology Date: 2007-09-11 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Sowmya Varada; Ronilda Lacson; Ali S Raja; Ivan K Ip; Louise Schneider; David Osterbur; Paul Bain; Nicole Vetrano; Jacqueline Cellini; Carol Mita; Margaret Coletti; Julia Whelan; Ramin Khorasani Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2018-05-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: William R Hendee; Gary J Becker; James P Borgstede; Jennifer Bosma; William J Casarella; Beth A Erickson; C Douglas Maynard; James H Thrall; Paul E Wallner Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-08-24 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Anupam B Kharbanda; Nanette C Dudley; Lalit Bajaj; Michelle D Stevenson; Charles G Macias; Manoj K Mittal; Richard G Bachur; Jonathan E Bennett; Kelly Sinclair; Craig Huang; Peter S Dayan Journal: Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med Date: 2012-08
Authors: Gordon D Schiff; Ann Louise Puopolo; Anne Huben-Kearney; Winnie Yu; Carol Keohane; Peggy McDonough; Bonnie R Ellis; David W Bates; Madeleine Biondolillo Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2013 Dec 9-23 Impact factor: 21.873