Impact of Clinical Decision Support on Radiography for Acute Ankle Injuries: A Randomized Trial

DSpace/Manakin Repository

Impact of Clinical Decision Support on Radiography for Acute Ankle Injuries: A Randomized Trial

Citable link to this page

 

 
Title: Impact of Clinical Decision Support on Radiography for Acute Ankle Injuries: A Randomized Trial
Author: Tajmir, Shahein; Raja, Ali S.; Ip, Ivan K.; Andruchow, James; Silveira, Patricia; Smith, Stacy; Khorasani, Ramin

Note: Order does not necessarily reflect citation order of authors.

Citation: Tajmir, Shahein, Ali S. Raja, Ivan K. Ip, James Andruchow, Patricia Silveira, Stacy Smith, and Ramin Khorasani. 2017. “Impact of Clinical Decision Support on Radiography for Acute Ankle Injuries: A Randomized Trial.” Western Journal of Emergency Medicine 18 (3): 487-495. doi:10.5811/westjem.2017.1.33053. http://dx.doi.org/10.5811/westjem.2017.1.33053.
Full Text & Related Files:
Abstract: 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.
Published Version: doi:10.5811/westjem.2017.1.33053
Other Sources: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5391900/pdf/
Terms of Use: This article is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of-use#LAA
Citable link to this page: http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:32630435
Downloads of this work:

Show full Dublin Core record

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

 
 

Search DASH


Advanced Search
 
 

Submitters