A Secondary Analysis to Identify Patient-Centered Outcomes in the ACR’s Appropriateness Criteria

Patient-centred outcomes of imaging tests: recommendations for patients, clinicians and researchers

BACKGROUND

Imaging tests are one of the most frequently used diagnostic modalities in healthcare, but the benefits of their direct impacts on clinical decision-making have been countered by concerns that they can be overused. Assessing the relative value of imaging tests has largely focused on measures of test accuracy, which overlooks more comprehensive benefits and risks of imaging tests, particularly their impact on patient-centred outcomes (PCOs). We present the findings of the Patient Reported Outcomes of Diagnostics (PROD) research study in response to a methodological gap in the area of diagnostic test comparative effectiveness research.

METHODS

Over a 3-year period, the PROD Study engaged with multiple stakeholders to identify existing conceptual models related to PCOs for imaging testing, conducted primary research and evidence synthesis, and developed consensus recommendations to describe and categorise PCOs related to imaging testing.

RESULTS

The PROD framework categorises PCOs from imaging studies within four main domains: information or knowledge yielded, physical impact, emotional outcomes and test burden. PCOs interact with each other and influence effects across domains, and can be modified by factors related to the patient, clinical situation, healthcare team and the testing environment.

CONCLUSIONS

Using PCOs to inform healthcare decision-making will require ways of collating and presenting information on PCOs in ways that can inform patient-provider decision-making, and developing methods to determine the relative importance of outcomes (including test accuracy) to one another.

Adding value to imaging services: a survey of patient and referring physician preferences for direct radiologic reporting of results

PURPOSE

To identify preferences of patients and referring physicians for direct patient communication and notification of radiologic study results.

METHODS

An anonymous survey was conducted of patients undergoing outpatient radiologic imaging studies and their referring physicians. The voluntary surveys elicited responses regarding preferences on a 5-point Likert scale (Strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree and strongly agree), as well as indicated by responding yes or no to specific questions.

RESULTS

368 patients completed the survey. 81.5% of patient responders preferred all results communicated from the radiologist within the same day. 65.9% of patients preferred same day results if normal vs 65.8% if abnormal. 34.5% preferred to wait and review normal results with the referring physician. 41.5% preferred to wait and review abnormal results with the referring physician. It was found that patients were more likely to strongly agree with waiting to review results with the referring physician if the results were abnormal, as opposed to normal (18.5% vs 11.9%, respectively; P < 0.014). 64% of physicians did not want results reviewed with their patients; 87.6% did not want a report sent to the patient by the radiologist, even after report was sent to their office. 66.4% of patients surveyed indicated that waiting for imaging results gives them anxiety.

CONCLUSIONS

58-82% of patients preferred same day radiologist communication of their results while 55-87.6% of physicians did not prefer same day radiologist communication of results directly with their patients. 66.4% of patients surveyed indicated that waiting for imaging results gives them anxiety.

Qualitative study to explore radiologist and radiologic technologist perceptions of outcomes patients experience during imaging in the USA

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to explore the patient-centred outcomes (PCOs) radiologists and radiologic technologists perceive to be important to patients undergoing imaging procedures.

DESIGN

We conducted a qualitative study of individual semi-structured interviews.

PARTICIPANTS

We recruited multiple types of radiologists including general, musculoskeletal neuroradiology, body and breast imagers as well as X-ray, ultrasound, CT or MRI radiologic technologists from Washington and Idaho.

OUTCOME

Thematic analysis was conducted to identify themes and subthemes related to PCOs of imaging procedures.

RESULTS

Ten radiologists and six radiology technologists participated. Four main domains of PCOs were identified: emotions, physical factors, knowledge and patient burden. In addition to these outcomes, we also identified patient and provider factors that can potentially moderate these outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Radiologists and technologists perceived outcomes related to the effect of imaging procedures on patients' emotions, physical well-being, knowledge and burden from financial and opportunity costs to be important to patients undergoing imaging procedures. There are opportunities for the radiology community to measure and use these PCOs in comparisons of imaging procedures and potentially identify areas where these outcomes can be leveraged to drive a more patient-centred approach to radiology.