Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2013 Nov;126(11):975-81.
doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2013.04.018.

Does clinical decision support reduce unwarranted variation in yield of CT pulmonary angiogram?

Affiliations

Does clinical decision support reduce unwarranted variation in yield of CT pulmonary angiogram?

Luciano M Prevedello et al. Am J Med. 2013 Nov.

Abstract

Objective: The study objective was to determine whether previously documented effects of clinical decision support on computed tomography for pulmonary embolism in the emergency department (ie, decreased use and increased yield) are due to a decrease in unwarranted variation. We evaluated clinical decision support effect on intra- and inter-physician variability in the yield of pulmonary embolism computed tomography (PE-CT) in this setting.

Methods: The study was performed in an academic adult medical center emergency department with 60,000 annual visits. We enrolled all patients who had PE-CT performed 18 months pre- and post-clinical decision support implementation. Intra- and inter-physician variability in yield (% PE-CT positive for acute pulmonary embolism) were assessed. Yield variability was measured using logistic regression accounting for patient characteristics.

Results: A total of 1542 PE-CT scans were performed before clinical decision support, and 1349 PE-CT scans were performed after clinical decision support. Use of PE-CT decreased from 26.5 to 24.3 computed tomography scans/1000 patient visits after clinical decision support (P < .02); yield increased from 9.2% to 12.6% (P < .01). Crude inter-physician variability in yield ranged from 2.6% to 20.5% before clinical decision support and from 0% to 38.1% after clinical decision support. After controlling for patient characteristics, the post-clinical decision support period showed significant inter-physician variability (P < .04). Intra-physician variability was significant in 3 of the 25 physicians (P < .04), all with increased yield post-clinical decision support.

Conclusions: Overall PE-CT yield increased after clinical decision support implementation despite significant heterogeneity among physicians. Increased inter-physician variability in yield after clinical decision support was not explained by patient characteristics alone and may be due to variable physician acceptance of clinical decision support. Clinical decision support alone is unlikely to eliminate unwarranted variability, and additional strategies and interventions may be needed to help optimize acceptance of clinical decision support to maximize returns on national investments in health information technology.

Keywords: Computed tomography; Pulmonary embolism; Variation; Yield.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The clinical decision support required information about the level of clinical suspicion for pulmonary embolism (low, intermediate, or high) and the serum D-dimer level (not done, unknown, normal, or elevated). (A) If no information was provided for these variables, the application presented the user with message A and prompted them to provide additional clinical information (add indication). (B) Imaging requests for patients with a normal D-dimer level and intermediate or low suspicion for pulmonary embolism received message B. (C) Imaging requests for patients with an intermediate or low level of clinical suspicion without a D-dimer received message C. (D) No decision support was presented if the request was deemed appropriate. CT = computed tomography; CTPA = computed tomography pulmonary angiography; PE = pulmonary embolism.

Comment in

  • Ordering high-cost medical imaging: a right or a privilege?
    Stern RG. Stern RG. Am J Med. 2013 Nov;126(11):939-40. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2013.05.011. Epub 2013 Aug 26. Am J Med. 2013. PMID: 23987651 No abstract available.
  • An evaluation of a clinical decision support tool.
    Nguyen C, Kuschner W. Nguyen C, et al. Am J Med. 2014 May;127(5):e21. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2013.11.027. Am J Med. 2014. PMID: 24758879 No abstract available.
  • The reply.
    Raja AS, Prevedello LM, Ip IK, Sodickson A, Khorasani R. Raja AS, et al. Am J Med. 2014 May;127(5):e23. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2014.02.001. Am J Med. 2014. PMID: 24758880 No abstract available.

References

    1. Iglehart JK. Health insurers and medical-imaging policy—a work in progress. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:1030–1037. - PubMed
    1. Raja AS, Wright C, Sodickson AD, et al. Negative appendectomy rate in the era of CT: an 18-year perspective. Radiology. 2010;256:460–465. - PubMed
    1. Mortele KJ, Ip IK, Wu BU, Conwell DL, Banks PA, Khorasani R. Acute pancreatitis: imaging utilization practices in an urban teaching hospital—analysis of trends with assessment of independent predictors in correlation with patient outcomes. Radiology. 2011;258:174–181. - PubMed
    1. Brenner DJ, Hall EJ. Cancer risks from CT scans: now we have data, what next? Radiology. 2012;265:330–331. - PubMed
    1. Pearce MS, Salotti JA, Little MP, et al. Radiation exposure from CT scans in childhood and subsequent risk of leukaemia and brain tumours: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet. 2012;380:499–505. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types