Original Article

Radiologists’ Recommendations for Additional Imaging on Inpatient CT Studies: Do Referring Physicians Follow Them?

Authors: Owen Hanley, DO, MPH, Amir Lotfi, MD, Tiara Sanborn, DO, Jennifer L. Friderici, MS, Janice Fitzgerald, RN, MS, Poornima Manikantan, BS, Linda Canty, MD, Mihaela S. Stefan, MD, PhD

Abstract

Objectives: Studies have found that recommendations for additional imaging (RAI) accompany up to 31% of index computed tomography (CT) scans. In this study we assessed the frequency with which recommendations are accepted by the referring physician and the impact of AI on case management.

Methods: We performed a cross-sectional study of all index CT scans of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis performed on adult inpatients during a 1-month period at a tertiary medical center. Each radiology report was examined for mention of RAI. We used a standardized abstraction tool to review medical records for the indication for the RAI (related to original diagnosis vs incidental finding), the clinician’s rationale for pursuing or discarding the RAI, and the impact of the AI on the inpatient treatment plan.

Results: Among the 430 scans reviewed, most (57.7%) were of the abdomen/pelvis. RAI was recommended in 67 cases (odds ratio [OR] 15.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 12.4–19.3) and AI was completed in 24 of 67 cases (35.8%). Factors associated with a recommendation for AI were the presence of an incidental finding (OR 3.5, 95% CI 1.7–6.8) and verbal communication of the result to the ordering provider (OR 2.09, 95% CI 1.23–3.5). When performed, AI altered the treatment plan 75% (18/24) of the time. Among the 43 cases in which AI was not performed, 34.1% were deferred to outpatient, 13.6% underwent alternative clinical intervention, and 13.6% were judged unnecessary by the primary team. No rationale was documented in the chart for the remaining 38.6%.

Conclusions: Despite concerns about autoreferral by radiologists for AI studies, we found a lower rate than in many prior studies, which may reflect a change in clinical practice. One-third of these recommendations were implemented and verbal communication was strongly associated with the likelihood of second image ordering. In the majority of the cases, the AI affected patient management. Based on these findings, radiologists should consider calling the ordering provider to increase the likelihood that the primary team will follow their recommendations.

This content is limited to qualifying members.

Existing members, please login first.

If you have an existing account please login now to access this article or view your purchase options.

Purchase only this article ($15)

Create a free account, then purchase this article to download or access it online for 24 hours.

Purchase an SMJ online subscription ($75)

Create a free account, then purchase a subscription to get complete access to all articles for a full year.

Purchase a membership plan (fees vary)

Premium members can access all articles plus recieve many more benefits. View all membership plans and benefit packages.

References

1. Gazelle GS, Halpern EF, Ryan HS, et al. Utilization of diagnostic medical imaging: comparison of radiologist referral versus same-specialty referral. Radiology 2007;245:517-522.
 
2. Levin DC, Rao VM, Parker L, et al. Ownership or leasing of CT scanners by nonradiologist physicians: a rapidly growing trend that raises concern about self-referral. J Am Coll Radiol 2008;5:1206-1209.
 
3. Studdert DM, Mello MM, Sage WM, et al. Defensive medicine among high-risk specialist physicians in a volatile malpractice environment. JAMA 2005;293:2609-2617.
 
4. IMV. IMV 2006 CT market summary. http://www.imvinfo.com/user/documents/content_documents/nws_rad/MS_CT_DSandTOC.pdf. Published October 2006. Accessed September 21, 2017.
 
5. Levin DC, Rao VM, Parker L, et al. Bending the curve: the recent marked slowdown in growth of noninvasive diagnostic imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011;196:W25-W29.
 
6. Levin DC, Edmiston RB, Ricci JA, et al. Self-referral in private offices for imaging studies performed in Pennsylvania Blue Shield subscribers during 1991. Radiology 1993;189:371-375.
 
7. Hillman BJ, Olson GT, Griffith PE, et al. Physicians' utilization and charges for outpatient diagnostic imaging in a Medicare population. JAMA 1992;268:2050-2054.
 
8. Ginsberg LE."If clinically indicated": is it? Radiology 2010;254:324-325.
 
9. Baumgarten DA, Nelson RC. Outcome of examinations self-referred as a result of spiral CT of the abdomen. Acad Radiol 1997;4:802-805.
 
10. Blaivas M, Lyon M. Frequency of radiology self-referral in abdominal computed tomographic scans and the implied cost. Am J Emerg Med 2007;25:396-399.
 
11. Lee SI, Saokar A, Dreyer KJ, et al. Does radiologist recommendation for follow-up with the same imaging modality contribute substantially to high-cost imaging volume? Radiology 2007;242:857-864.
 
12. Sistrom CL, Dreyer KJ, Dang PP, et al. Recommendations for additional imaging in radiology reports: multifactorial analysis of 5.9 million examinations. Radiology 2009;253:453-461.
 
13. Thrall JH. Radiation exposure in CT scanning and risk: where are we? Radiology 2012;264:325-328.
 
14. Gunn AJ, Alabre CI, Bennett SE, et al. Structured feedback from referring physicians: a novel approach to quality improvement in radiology reporting. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2013;201:853-857.
 
15. Gunn AJ, Sahani DV, Bennett SE, et al. Recent measures to improve radiology reporting: perspectives from primary care physicians. J Am Coll Radiol 2013;10:122-127.
 
16. Singh H, Thomas EJ, Mani S, et al. Timely follow-up of abnormal diagnostic imaging test results in an outpatient setting: are electronic medical records achieving their potential? Arch Intern Med 2009;169:1578-1586.