Literature DB >> 9391938

Automated evidence-based critiquing of orders for abdominal radiographs: impact on utilization and appropriateness.

L H Harpole1, R Khorasani, J Fiskio, G J Kuperman, D W Bates.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Inappropriate utilization of diagnostic testing has been well documented. The purpose of this study was to measure the impact of presenting real time, evidence-based critiques about the appropriateness of abdominal radiograph (KUB) orders on physician decision making.
DESIGN: Prospective trial where evidence-based critiques were presented to ordering clinicians in two kinds of situations: (1) a KUB was likely to have a low probability of providing useful information, or (2) an alternative view(s) was more appropriate given the clinical circumstance. There were two phases of the trial: Phase 1 was a 9-week period where evidence-based critiques were presented at the time of ordering a KUB, followed by Phase 2, a 19-week period in which orderers were randomized to receive critiques either amended to include both institutional data regarding the utility of the critiques and stronger messages about the lack of utility of the study, or the same critiques as presented in Phase 1, depending upon indication. Based upon the radiologist's report of their interpretation of the exams, the results of the examinations were scored as positive, equivocal, or negative using structured criteria.
RESULTS: 299 KUBs in Phase 1 and 385 KUBs in Phase 2 received at least one critique. Cancellation rates of low yield films were low, and were similar in Phase 1 and 2, 8/258 (3%) vs. 10/283 (4%). Compliance with the recommendation for alternative view(s) was higher: 19/104 (38%) in Phase 1 vs. 96/176 (55%) in Phase 2 (p = 0.006). The results differentiated low-yield from non-low-yield films: 5% of low-yield films vs. 20% of non-low-yield films were positive in Phase 2 (p < 0.0001). Surgical physicians were less likely to cancel (p = 0.07) or to change to the suggested view(s) (p < 0.0001) than medical physicians or nurses.
CONCLUSIONS: The intervention identified clinical situations in which KUBs appeared to have a low clinical yield. In response to evidence-based critiques, providers were reluctant to cancel their order, but were more willing to change to different views. To reduce the number of inappropriate radiographic films, stronger incentives or interventions may be required.

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9391938      PMCID: PMC61269          DOI: 10.1136/jamia.1997.0040511

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc        ISSN: 1067-5027            Impact factor:   4.497


  41 in total

1.  Department of inappropriate investigations.

Authors:  B Golberg
Journal:  Br Med J       Date:  1977-11-12

2.  Cost containment and changing physicians' practice behavior. Can the fox learn to guard the chicken coop?

Authors:  J M Eisenberg; S V Williams
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1981-11-13       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  Guidelines you can follow and can trust. An ideal and an example.

Authors:  C J McDonald; J M Overhage
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1994-03-16       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  Evaluation of plain abdominal radiographs in the diagnosis of abdominal pain.

Authors:  R L Eisenberg; P Heineken; M W Hedgcock; M Federle; H I Goldberg
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1982-08       Impact factor: 25.391

5.  Analysis of interrupted time series mortality trends: an example to evaluate regionalized perinatal care.

Authors:  D Gillings; D Makuc; E Siegel
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1981-01       Impact factor: 9.308

6.  A trial of two strategies to modify the test-ordering behavior of medical residents.

Authors:  A R Martin; M A Wolf; L A Thibodeau; V Dzau; E Braunwald
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1980-12-04       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  Physician response to computer reminders.

Authors:  C J McDonald; G A Wilson; G P McCabe
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1980-10-03       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  Abdominal radiography in the emergency department: a prospective analysis.

Authors:  T A McCook; C E Ravin; R P Rice
Journal:  Ann Emerg Med       Date:  1982-01       Impact factor: 5.721

9.  Reminders to physicians from an introspective computer medical record. A two-year randomized trial.

Authors:  C J McDonald; S L Hui; D M Smith; W M Tierney; S J Cohen; M Weinberger; G P McCabe
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1984-01       Impact factor: 25.391

10.  A pilot evaluation of radiography of the acute abdomen.

Authors:  M W Hayward; C Hayward; W P Ennis; C J Roberts
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  1984-07       Impact factor: 2.350

View more
  21 in total

Review 1.  Clinical decision support provided within physician order entry systems: a systematic review of features effective for changing clinician behavior.

Authors:  Kensaku Kawamoto; David F Lobach
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2003

2.  Ten commandments for effective clinical decision support: making the practice of evidence-based medicine a reality.

Authors:  David W Bates; Gilad J Kuperman; Samuel Wang; Tejal Gandhi; Anne Kittler; Lynn Volk; Cynthia Spurr; Ramin Khorasani; Milenko Tanasijevic; Blackford Middleton
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2003-08-04       Impact factor: 4.497

3.  The anatomy of decision support during inpatient care provider order entry (CPOE): empirical observations from a decade of CPOE experience at Vanderbilt.

Authors:  Randolph A Miller; Lemuel R Waitman; Sutin Chen; S Trent Rosenbloom
Journal:  J Biomed Inform       Date:  2005-10-21       Impact factor: 6.317

4.  David Westfall Bates, MD: a conversation with the editor on improving patient safety, quality of care, and outcomes by using information technology. Interview by William Clifford Roberts.

Authors:  David Westfall Bates
Journal:  Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent)       Date:  2005-04

5.  Overriding of drug safety alerts in computerized physician order entry.

Authors:  Heleen van der Sijs; Jos Aarts; Arnold Vulto; Marc Berg
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2005-12-15       Impact factor: 4.497

6.  A roadmap for national action on clinical decision support.

Authors:  Jerome A Osheroff; Jonathan M Teich; Blackford Middleton; Elaine B Steen; Adam Wright; Don E Detmer
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2007-01-09       Impact factor: 4.497

7.  Evidence-based imaging guidelines and Medicare payment policy.

Authors:  Christopher L Sistrom; Niccie L McKay
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 3.402

Review 8.  The basis for using the Internet to support the information needs of primary care.

Authors:  E E Westberg; R A Miller
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  1999 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 4.497

Review 9.  The impact of computerized provider order entry systems on medical-imaging services: a systematic review.

Authors:  Andrew Georgiou; Mirela Prgomet; Andrew Markewycz; Edwina Adams; Johanna I Westbrook
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2011-03-08       Impact factor: 4.497

10.  Reducing vancomycin use utilizing a computer guideline: results of a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  K G Shojania; D Yokoe; R Platt; J Fiskio; N Ma'luf; D W Bates
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  1998 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 4.497

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.