Person:

Raja, Ali

Introduction: Nothing has been published to describe the practices of medical societies in choosing abstracts for presentations at their annual meetings. We surveyed medical societies to determine their practices, and also present a theoretical analysis of the topic. Methods: We contacted a convenience sample of large U.S. medical conferences, and determined their approach to choosing abstracts. We obtained information from web sites, telephone, and email. Our theoretical analysis compares values-based and empirical approaches for scoring system development. Results: We contacted 32 societies and obtained data on 28 (response rate 88%). We excluded one upon learning that research was not presented at its annual meeting, leaving 27 for analysis. Only 2 (7%) made their abstract scoring process available to submitters. Reviews were blinded in most societies (21;78%), and all but one asked reviewers to recuse themselves for conflict of interest (96%). All required ≥3 reviewers. Of the 24 providing information on how scores were generated, 21 (88%) reported using a single gestalt score, and three used a combined score created from pooled domain-specific sub-scores. We present a framework for societies to use in choosing abstracts, and demonstrate its application in the development of a new scoring system. Conclusions: Most medical societies use subjective, gestalt methods to select research for presentation at their annual meetings and do not disclose to submitters the details of how abstracts are chosen. We present a new scoring system that is transparent to submitters and reviewers alike with an accompanying statement of values and ground rules. We discuss the challenges faced in selecting abstracts for a large scientific meeting and share the values and practical considerations that undergird the new system.

Introduction: While only 15–20% of patients with foot and ankle injuries presenting to urgent care centers have clinically significant fractures, most undergo radiography. We examined the impact of electronic point-of-care clinical decision support (CDS) on adherence to the Ottawa Ankle Rules (OAR), as well as use and yield of foot and ankle radiographs in patients with acute ankle injury. Methods: We obtained institutional review board approval for this randomized controlled study performed April 18, 2012—December 15, 2013. All ordering providers credentialed at an urgent care affiliated with a quaternary care academic hospital were randomized to either receive or not receive CDS, based on the OAR and integrated into the physician order-entry system, with feedback at the time of imaging order. If the patient met OAR low-risk criteria, providers were advised against imaging and could either cancel the order or ignore the alert. We identified patients with foot and ankle complaints via ICD-9 billing codes and electronic health records and radiology reports reviewed for those who were eligible. Chi-square was used to compare adherence to the OAR (primary outcome), radiography utilization rate and radiography yield of foot and ankle imaging (secondary outcomes) between the intervention and control groups. Results: Of 14,642 patients seen at urgent care during the study period, 613 (4.2%, representing 632 visits) presented with acute ankle injury and were eligible for application of the OAR; 374 (59.2%) of these were seen by control-group providers. In the intervention group, CDS adherence was higher for both ankle (239/258=92.6% vs. 231/374=61.8%, p=0.02) and foot radiography (209/258=81.0% vs. 238/374=63.6%; p<0.01). However, ankle radiography use was higher in the intervention group (166/258=64.3% vs. 183/374=48.9%; p<0.01), while foot radiography use (141/258=54.6% vs. 202/374=54.0%; p=0.95) was not. Radiography yield was also higher in the intervention group (26/307=8.5% vs. 18/385=4.7%; p=0.04). Conclusion: Clinical decision support, previously demonstrated to improve guideline adherence for high-cost imaging, can also improve guideline adherence for radiography – as demonstrated by increased OAR adherence and increased imaging yield.

Objective For health information technology tools to fully inform evidence-based decisions, recommendations must be reliably assessed for quality and strength of evidence. We aimed to create an annotation framework for grading recommendations regarding appropriate use of diagnostic imaging examinations.

Methods The annotation framework was created by an expert panel (clinicians in three medical specialties, medical librarians, and biomedical scientists) who developed a process for achieving consensus in assessing recommendations, and evaluated by measuring agreement in grading the strength of evidence for 120 empirically selected recommendations using the Oxford Levels of Evidence.

Results Eighty-two percent of recommendations were assigned to Level 5 (expert opinion). Inter-annotator agreement was 0.70 on initial grading (κ = 0.35, 95% CI, 0.23-0.48). After systematic discussion utilizing the annotation framework, agreement increased significantly to 0.97 (κ = 0.88, 95% CI, 0.77-0.99).

Conclusions A novel annotation framework was effective for grading the strength of evidence supporting appropriate use criteria for diagnostic imaging exams.

Introduction: In June 2016, the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) Emergency Quality Network began its Reduce Avoidable Imaging Initiative, designed to “reduce testing and imaging with low risk patients through the implementation of Choosing Wisely recommendations.” However, it is unknown whether New England emergency departments (ED) have already implemented evidence-based interventions to improve adherence to ACEP Choosing Wisely recommendations related to imaging after their initial release in 2013. Our objective was to determine this, as well as whether provider-specific audit and feedback for imaging had been implemented in these EDs. Methods: This survey study was exempt from institutional review board review. In 2015, we mailed surveys to 195 hospital-affiliated EDs in all six New England states to determine whether they had implemented Choosing Wisely-focused interventions in 2014. Initial mailings included cover letters denoting the endorsement of each state’s ACEP chapter, and we followed up twice with repeat mailings to non-responders. Data analysis included descriptive statistics and a comparison of state differences using Fisher’s exact test. Results: A total of 169/195 (87%) of New England EDs responded, with all individual state response rates >80%. Overall, 101 (60%) of responding EDs had implemented an intervention for at least one Choosing Wisely imaging scenario; 57% reported implementing a specific guideline/policy/clinical pathway and 28% reported implementing a computerized decision support system. The most common interventions were for chest computed tomography (CT) in patients at low risk of pulmonary embolism (47% of EDs) and head CT in patients with minor trauma (45% of EDs). In addition, 40% of EDs had implemented provider-specific audit and feedback, without significant interstate variation (range: 29–55%). Conclusion: One year after release of the ACEP Choosing Wisely recommendations, most New England EDs had a guideline/policy/clinical pathway related to at least one of the recommendations. However, only a minority of them were using provider-specific audit and feedback or computerized decision support. Few EDs have embraced the opportunity to implement the multiple evidence-based interventions likely to advance the national goals of improving patient-centered and resource-efficient care.

Background: Unnecessary diagnostic imaging leads to higher costs, longer emergency department stays, and increased patient exposure to ionizing radiation. We sought to prospectively derive and validate two decision instruments (DIs) for selective chest computed tomography (CT) in adult blunt trauma patients. Methods and Findings: From September 2011 to May 2014, we prospectively enrolled blunt trauma patients over 14 y of age presenting to eight US, urban level 1 trauma centers in this observational study. During the derivation phase, physicians recorded the presence or absence of 14 clinical criteria before viewing chest imaging results. We determined injury outcomes by CT radiology readings and categorized injuries as major or minor according to an expert-panel-derived clinical classification scheme. We then employed recursive partitioning to derive two DIs: Chest CT-All maximized sensitivity for all injuries, and Chest CT-Major maximized sensitivity for only major thoracic injuries (while increasing specificity). In the validation phase, we employed similar methodology to prospectively test the performance of both DIs. We enrolled 11,477 patients—6,002 patients in the derivation phase and 5,475 patients in the validation phase. The derived Chest CT-All DI consisted of (1) abnormal chest X-ray, (2) rapid deceleration mechanism, (3) distracting injury, (4) chest wall tenderness, (5) sternal tenderness, (6) thoracic spine tenderness, and (7) scapular tenderness. The Chest CT-Major DI had the same criteria without rapid deceleration mechanism. In the validation phase, Chest CT-All had a sensitivity of 99.2% (95% CI 95.4%–100%), a specificity of 20.8% (95% CI 19.2%–22.4%), and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 99.8% (95% CI 98.9%–100%) for major injury, and a sensitivity of 95.4% (95% CI 93.6%–96.9%), a specificity of 25.5% (95% CI 23.5%–27.5%), and a NPV of 93.9% (95% CI 91.5%–95.8%) for either major or minor injury. Chest CT-Major had a sensitivity of 99.2% (95% CI 95.4%–100%), a specificity of 31.7% (95% CI 29.9%–33.5%), and a NPV of 99.9% (95% CI 99.3%–100%) for major injury and a sensitivity of 90.7% (95% CI 88.3%–92.8%), a specificity of 37.9% (95% CI 35.8%–40.1%), and a NPV of 91.8% (95% CI 89.7%–93.6%) for either major or minor injury. Regarding the limitations of our work, some clinicians may disagree with our injury classification and sensitivity thresholds for injury detection. Conclusions: We prospectively derived and validated two DIs (Chest CT-All and Chest CT-Major) that identify blunt trauma patients with clinically significant thoracic injuries with high sensitivity, allowing for a safe reduction of approximately 25%–37% of unnecessary chest CTs. Trauma evaluation protocols that incorporate these DIs may decrease unnecessary costs and radiation exposure in the disproportionately young trauma population.

Introduction: Emergency department observation units (EDOUs) are a valuable alternative to inpatient admissions for ED patients needing extended care. However, while the use of advanced imaging is becoming more common in the ED, there are no studies characterizing the use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations in the EDOU. Methods: This institutional review board-approved, retrospective study was performed at a 999-bed quaternary care academic Level I adult and pediatric trauma center, with approximately 114,000 ED visits annually and a 32-bed adult EDOU. We retrospectively reviewed the EDOU patient database for all MRI examinations done from October 1, 2013, to September 30, 2015. We sought to describe the most frequent uses for MRI during EDOU admissions and reviewed EDOU length of stay (LOS) to determine whether the use of MRI was associated with any change in LOS. Results: A total of 22,840 EDOU admissions were recorded during the two-year study period, and 4,437 (19%) of these patients had a least one MRI examination during their stay; 2,730 (62%) of these studies were of the brain, head, or neck, and an additional 1,392 (31%) were of the spine. There was no significant difference between the median LOS of admissions in which an MRI study was performed (17.5 hours) and the median LOS (17.7 hours) of admissions in which an MRI study was not performed [p=0.33]. Conclusion: Neuroimaging makes up the clear majority of MRI examinations from our EDOU, and the use of MRI does not appear to prolong EDOU LOS. Future work should focus on the appropriateness of these MRI examinations to determine potential resource and cost savings.

Introduction: Emergency departments (ED) and hospitals face increasing challenges related to capacity, throughput, and stewardship of limited resources while maintaining high quality. Appropriate utilization of extremity magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations within the emergency setting is not well known. Therefore, this study aimed to determine indications for and appropriateness of MRI of the extremities for musculoskeletal conditions in the ED observation unit (EDOU). Methods: We conducted this institutional review board-approved, retrospective study in a large, quaternary care academic center and Level I trauma center. An institutional database was queried retrospectively to identify all adult patients undergoing an extremity MRI while in the EDOU during the two-year study period from October 2013 through September 2015. We compared clinical history with the American College of Radiology (ACR) Appropriateness Criteria® for musculoskeletal indications. The primary outcome was appropriateness of musculoskeletal MRI exams of the extremities; examinations with an ACR Criteria score of seven or higher were deemed appropriate. Secondary measures included MRI utilization and imaging findings. Results: During the study period, 22,713 patients were evaluated in the EDOU. Of those patients, 4,409 had at least one MRI performed, and 88 MRIs met inclusion criteria as musculoskeletal extremity examinations (2% of all patients undergoing an MRI exam in the EDOU during the study period). The most common exams were foot (27, 31%); knee (26, 30%); leg/femur (10, 11%); and shoulder (10, 11%). The most common indications were suspected infection (42, 48%) and acute trauma (23, 26%). Fifty-six percent of exams were performed with intravenous contrast; and 83% (73) of all MRIs were deemed appropriate based on ACR Criteria. The most common reason for inappropriate imaging was lack of performance of radiographs prior to MRI. Conclusion: The majority of musculoskeletal extremity MRI examinations performed in the EDOU were appropriate based on ACR Appropriateness Criteria. However, the optimal timing and most-appropriate site for performance of many clinically appropriate musculoskeletal extremity MRIs performed in the EDOU remains unclear. Potential deferral to the outpatient setting may be a preferred population health management strategy.