Lehnert Bruce E, Bree Robert L
Department of Radiology, University of Washington, Harborview Medical Center, Seattle, Washington 98104-2499, USA.
J Am Coll Radiol. 2010 Mar;7(3):192-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2009.11.010.
The aim of this study was to retrospectively analyze a large group of CT and MRI examinations for appropriateness using evidence-based guidelines.
The authors reviewed medical records from 459 elective outpatient CT and MR examinations from primary care physicians. Evidence-based appropriateness criteria from a radiology benefit management company were used to determine if the examination would have met criteria for approval. Submitted clinical history at the time of interpretation and clinic notes and laboratory results preceding the date of the imaging study were examined to simulate a real-time consultation with the referring provider. The radiology reports and subsequent clinic visits were analyzed for outcomes.
Of the 459 examinations reviewed, 284 (62%) were CT and 175 (38%) were MRI. Three hundred forty-one (74%) were considered appropriate, and 118 (26%) were not considered appropriate. Examples of inappropriate examinations included brain CT for chronic headache, lumbar spine MR for acute back pain, knee or shoulder MRI in patients with osteoarthritis, and CT for hematuria during a urinary tract infection. Fifty-eight percent of the appropriate studies had positive results and affected subsequent management, whereas only thirteen percent [corrected] of inappropriate studies had positive results and affected management.
A high percentage of examinations not meeting appropriateness criteria and subsequently yielding negative results suggests a need for tools to help primary care physicians improve the quality of their imaging decision requests. In the current environment, which stresses cost containment and comparative effectiveness, traditional radiology benefit management tools are being challenged by clinical decision support, with an emphasis on provider education coupled with electronic order entry systems.
本研究旨在使用循证指南对大量CT和MRI检查进行回顾性分析,以评估其合理性。
作者回顾了来自基层医疗医生的459例择期门诊CT和MR检查的病历。采用一家放射学效益管理公司的循证合理性标准来确定检查是否符合批准标准。在解读时提交的临床病史以及影像检查日期之前的临床记录和实验室结果均经过审查,以模拟与转诊医生的实时会诊。对放射学报告及随后的临床就诊结果进行分析。
在审查的459例检查中,284例(62%)为CT检查,175例(38%)为MRI检查。341例(74%)被认为是合适的,118例(26%)被认为不合适。不合适检查的例子包括针对慢性头痛的脑部CT检查、针对急性背痛的腰椎MR检查、骨关节炎患者的膝关节或肩关节MRI检查以及尿路感染期间针对血尿的CT检查。58%的合适检查结果为阳性并影响了后续治疗,而只有13%[校正后]的不合适检查结果为阳性并影响了治疗。
很大比例的检查不符合合理性标准且随后结果为阴性,这表明需要工具来帮助基层医疗医生提高其影像检查申请的质量。在当前强调成本控制和比较效果的环境下,传统的放射学效益管理工具正受到临床决策支持的挑战,后者强调对医生的教育并结合电子医嘱录入系统。