Management Strategies to Promote Follow-Up Care for Incidental Findings: A Scoping Review

The effectiveness of emergency medicine follow-up in attaining closed loop communication and downstream follow-up

BACKGROUND

Utilization of different Electronic Health Records (EHR) impedes communication between Emergency Medicine (EM) and Primary Care Provider (PCP) necessitating study on EM's effectiveness in enabling continuity of care following patient discharge. This study's objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of an EM-based follow-up program using secure email for closed-loop communication and follow-up of incidental findings (IF) after EM discharge.

METHODS

Retrospective study of IFs from two Emergency Departments (ED) and one urgent care between 9/1/20-8/30/21. Preceding day IFs were identified by an EM Quality Assurance (QA) team who then notified the patient's PCP via email. Automated rules-based natural language processing (NLP) of emails linking data to EHRs. Chart reviewing of outcomes included whether closed loop communication was established (via a PCP reply acknowledging IF receipt) and whether follow-up care occurred within 12 months. Multivariate logistic regression models examined factors associated with each outcome.

RESULTS

Of 1781 IF notifications, 62 % were female, 77 % white, and 91 % English speaking. PCP replied to 39.1 %; 64.9 % were ultimately followed-up. Patient and IF characteristics were not associated with PCP reply. PCP tenure and EM/PCP EHR system concordance were associated with higher adjusted Odds Ratio (aOR) of PCP reply (aOR 1.05 [1.04-1.07] vs 2.6 [2.0-3.3]). Laboratory IFs were followed-up more than imaging IFs (aOR 1.94 [1.46-2.6]). EM/PCP Use of same EHR was associated with higher odds of some form of follow-up (aOR: 2.1 [1.7-2.7]).

CONCLUSIONS

While email notifications and using the same EHR improve continuity of care, they are insufficient on their own. More comprehensive solutions are needed to enable EM-PCP communication and patient follow-up.

Improving communication of unexpected findings: The radiology actional findings tracking (RAFT) program

Incidental findings are unexpected, actionable discoveries made on diagnostic imaging that have significant patient care and medicolegal implications if not well managed. Despite their importance, few systems exist to manage incidental findings. The Radiology Actionable Findings Tracking (RAFT) Program was developed to improve communication of incidental findings to radiologists, providers, and their patients. The RAFT template is incorporated into the electronic medical record and discloses important information such as: Finding, Acuity, Communication Status, and General Recommendation for follow-up. This data is automatically compiled into a spreadsheet monitored by a clinical coordinator who is responsible for notifying the primary care physician or referring provider. The alert is resolved once appropriate communication is made and the recommended follow-up measures are documented. Between January 2021 and June 2023, the program has tracked the communication of 2,243 incidental findings, for an average of 75 incidental findings each month. Of those total findings, 270 findings (12 %) triggered additional protocols for provider and patient notification with subsequent follow-up. The program is effective in improving communication of incidental findings and can serve as a valuable tool for radiologists, providers, and the patients they serve.

Classification and Communication of Critical Findings in Emergency Radiology: A Scoping Review

PURPOSE

To identify the published standards for the classification and communication of critical actionable findings in emergency radiology and the associated facilitators and barriers to communication and message management or dissemination of such findings.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Search terms for resources pertaining to critical findings (CFs) in emergency radiology were applied to two databases (PubMed, Embase). Screening of hits using the following pre-established inclusion and exclusion criteria were performed by three analysts with subsequent consensus discussion for discrepancies: (1) the resources include any standards for the classification and communication of imaging findings as critical, or (2) the resource discusses any facilitators to the communication of CFs, or (3) the resource discusses any barriers to the communication of CFs. Resources with explicit focus on a pediatric population or predominant focus on artificial intelligence or natural language processing were omitted. Accompanying gray literature search was used to expand included resources. Data extraction included year, country, resource type, scope or purpose, participants, context, standards to identifying or communicating CFs, facilitators and barriers, method type, recommendations, applicability, and disclosures.

RESULTS

Seventy-six resources were included in the final analysis, including 16 societal or commission guidelines. Among the guidelines, no standardized list of CFs was identified, with typical recommendations suggesting application of a local policy. Communication standards included direct closed-loop communication for high acuity findings, with more flexible communication channels for less acute findings. Applied interventions for CFs management most frequently fell into four categories: electronic (n = 10), hybrid (ie, electronic or administrative) (n = 3), feedback or education (n = 5), and administrative (n = 4).

CONCLUSION

There are published standards, policies, and interventions for the management of CFs in emergency radiology. Three-tier stratification (eg, critical, urgent, incidental) based on time sensitivity and severity is most common with most CFs necessitating closed-loop communication. Awareness of systemic facilitators and barriers should inform local policy development. Electronic and administrative communication pathways are useful adjuncts. Further research should offer comparative analyses of different CF interventions with regard to cost-effectiveness, notification time, and user feedback.

Prospective Study of a System-Wide Adrenal Incidentaloma Quality Improvement Initiative

BACKGROUND

Appropriate follow-up of incidental adrenal masses (IAMs) is infrequent. We implemented a quality improvement (QI) program to improve management of IAMs.

STUDY DESIGN

This system-wide initiative targeted primary care providers (PCPs) after IAM detection. It incorporated (1) chart-based messages and emails to PCPs, (2) an evidence-based IAM evaluation algorithm, (3) standardized recommendations in radiology reports, and (4) access to a multispecialty adrenal clinic. Patients diagnosed with an IAM from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2019, were prospectively included (the "QI cohort") and compared with a historical, preintervention cohort diagnosed with IAMs in 2016. The primary outcomes were the initiation of an IAM investigation by the PCP, defined as relevant clinical history-taking, laboratory screening, follow-up imaging, or specialist referral.

RESULTS

The QI cohort included 437 patients and 210 in the historical cohort. All patients had 12 months or more of follow-up. In the QI cohort, 35.5% (155 of 437) met the primary endpoint for PCP-initiated evaluation, compared with 27.6% (58 of 210) in the historical cohort (p = 0.0496). Among the subgroup with a documented PCP working within our health system, 46.3% (74 of 160) met the primary endpoint in the QI cohort vs 33.3% (38 of 114) in the historical cohort (p = 0.035). After adjusting for insurance status, presence of current malignancy, initial imaging setting (outpatient, inpatient, or emergency department), and having an established PCP within our health system, patients in the QI cohort had 1.70 times higher odds (95% CI 1.16 to 2.50) of undergoing a PCP-initiated IAM evaluation. Adrenal surgery was ultimately performed in 2.1% (9 of 437) of QI cohort patients and 0.95% (2 of 210) of historical cohort patients (p = 0.517).

CONCLUSIONS

This simple, moderately labor-intensive QI intervention was associated with increased IAM evaluation initiated by PCPs.

Impact of an Automated Closed-Loop Communication and Tracking Tool on the Rate of Recommendations for Additional Imaging in Thoracic Radiology Reports

OBJECTIVE

Assess the effects of feedback reports and implementing a closed-loop communication system on rates of recommendations for additional imaging (RAIs) in thoracic radiology reports.

METHODS

In this retrospective, institutional review board-approved study at an academic quaternary care hospital, we analyzed 176,498 thoracic radiology reports during a pre-intervention (baseline) period from April 1, 2018, to November 30, 2018; a feedback report only period from December 1, 2018, to September 30, 2019; and a closed-loop communication system plus feedback report (IT intervention) period from October 1, 2019, to December 31, 2020, promoting explicit documentation of rationale, time frame, and imaging modality for RAI, defined as complete RAI. A previously validated natural language processing tool was used to classify reports with an RAI. Primary outcome of rate of RAI was compared using a control chart. Multivariable logistic regression determined factors associated with likelihood of RAI. We also estimated the completeness of RAI in reports comparing IT intervention to baseline using χ2 statistic.

RESULTS

The natural language processing tool classified 3.2% (5,682 of 176,498) reports as having an RAI; 3.5% (1,783 of 51,323) during the pre-intervention period, 3.8% (2,147 of 56,722) during the feedback report only period (odds ratio: 1.1, P = .03), and 2.6% (1,752 of 68,453) during the IT intervention period (odds ratio: 0.60, P < .001). In subanalysis, the proportion of incomplete RAI decreased from 84.0% (79 of 94) during the pre-intervention period to 48.5% (47 of 97) during the IT intervention period (P < .001).

DISCUSSION

Feedback reports alone increased RAI rates, and an IT intervention promoting documentation of complete RAI in addition to feedback reports led to significant reductions in RAI rate, incomplete RAI, and improved overall completeness of the radiology recommendations.

Implementing a Streamlined Radiology Workflow to Close the Loop on Incidental Imaging Findings in the Emergency Department

Actionable incidental findings (AIFs) are common imaging findings unrelated to the clinical indication for the imaging test for which follow-up is recommended. Increasing utilization of imaging in the emergency department (ED) in recent years has resulted in more patients with AIFs. When these findings are not properly communicated and followed up upon, there is harm to the patient's health outcome as well as possible increased financial costs for the patient, the health system, and potential litigation. Tracking these findings can be difficult, especially so in a large health system. In this report, we detail our experience implementing a closed-loop AIF program within the ED of 11 satellite hospitals of a large academic health system. Our new workflow streamlined radiologist reporting of AIFs through system macros and by using a standardized form integrated into the dictation software. Upon completion of the form, an automatic email is sent to a dedicated nurse navigator who documented the findings and closed the loop by coordinating follow-up imaging or clinic visits with patients, primary care providers, and specialists. Through the new workflow, a total of 1207 incidental finding reports have been submitted from July 2021 to May 2022. The vast majority of AIFs were identified on CT, and the most common categories included lung nodules, pancreas lesions, liver lesions, and other potentially cancerous lesions. At least 10 new cancers have been detected. We hope this report can help guide other health systems in the design of a closed-loop incidental findings program.

Quality Improvement Report: Adherence to Follow-up Recommendations for Incidental Abdominal Aneurysms

The use of national guidelines for the management of incidental radiologic findings remains low. Therefore, improving adherence to and consistency with follow-up recommendations for incidental findings was undertaken in a large academic practice. A gap analysis was performed, and incidental findings of abdominal aneurysms for which reporting management recommendations could be improved were identified. The Kotter change management framework was used, and institution-specific dictation macros were developed and implemented in February 2021 for the management of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs), renal artery aneurysms (RAAs), and splenic artery aneurysms (SAAs). A retrospective medical record review was conducted for February through April in 2019, 2020, and 2021 to assess reporting adherence and imaging and clinical follow-up. Personal feedback was provided to radiologists in July 2021 with repeat data collection in September 2021. A significant increase in the number of correct follow-up recommendations was reported for incidental AAAs and SAAs after implementation of the macro (P < .001). However, there was no significant change for RAAs. Providing personal feedback to radiologists further improved adherence with standard recommendation macros for common findings and dramatically increased adherence for rare findings such as RAAs. New macros resulted in an increase in AAA and SAA imaging follow-up (P < .001). Institution-specific dictation macros were found to improve adherence to reporting recommendations for incidental abdominal aneurysms, with further improvement seen after feedback, which can have a significant effect on clinical follow-up. © RSNA, 2023.

White Paper: Best Practices in the Communication and Management of Actionable Incidental Findings in Emergency Department Imaging

PURPOSE

Actionable incidental findings (AIFs) are common in radiologic imaging. Imaging is commonly performed in emergency department (ED) visits, and AIFs are frequently encountered, but the ED presents unique challenges for communication and follow-up of these findings. The authors formed a multidisciplinary panel to seek consensus regarding best practices in the reporting, communication, and follow-up of AIFs on ED imaging tests.

METHODS

A 15-member panel was formed, nominated by the ACR and American College of Emergency Physicians, to represent radiologists, emergency physicians, patients, and those involved in health care systems and quality. A modified Delphi process was used to identify areas of best practice and seek consensus. The panel identified four areas: (1) report elements and structure, (2) communication of findings with patients, (3) communication of findings with clinicians, and (4) follow-up and tracking systems. A survey was constructed to seek consensus and was anonymously administered in two rounds, with a priori agreement requiring at least 80% consensus. Discussion occurred after the first round, with readministration of questions where consensus was not initially achieved.

RESULTS

Consensus was reached in the four areas identified. There was particularly strong consensus that AIFs represent a system-level issue, with need for approaches that do not depend on individual clinicians or patients to ensure communication and completion of recommended follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

This multidisciplinary collaboration represents consensus results on best practices regarding the reporting and communication of AIFs in the ED setting.

Applying Implementation Science Principles to Systematize High-Quality Care for Potentially Significant Imaging Findings

OBJECTIVE

Use principles of implementation science to improve the diagnosis and management of potentially significant imaging findings.

METHODS

Multidisciplinary stakeholders codified the diagnosis and management of potentially significant imaging findings in eight organs and created a finding tracking management system that was embedded in radiologist workflows and IT systems. Radiologists were trained to use this system. An automated finding tracking management system was created to support consistent high-quality care through care pathway visualizations, increased awareness of specific findings in the electronic medical record, templated notifications, and creation of an electronic safety net. Primary outcome was the rate of quality reviews related to eight targeted imaging findings. Secondary outcome was radiologist use of the finding tracking management tool.

RESULTS

In the 4 years after implementation, the tool was used to track findings in 7,843 patients who received 10,015 ultrasound, CT, MRI, x-ray, and nuclear medicine examinations that were interpreted by all 34 radiologists. Use of the tool lead to a decrease in related quality reviews (from 8.0% to 0.0%, P < .007). Use of the system increased from 1.7% of examinations in the early implementation phase to 3.1% (+82%, P < .00001) in the postimplementation phase. Each radiologist used the tool on an average of 294.6 unique examinations (SD 404.8). Overall, radiologists currently use the tool approximately 4,000 times per year.

DISCUSSION

Radiologists frequently used a finding tracking management system to ensure effective communication and raise awareness of the importance of recommended future follow-up studies. Use of this system was associated with a decrease in the rate of quality review requests in this domain.

A Standardized Radiology Template Improves Incidental Adrenal Mass Follow-Up: A Prospective Effectiveness and Implementation Study

PURPOSE

Incidental adrenal masses (IAMs) are common but rarely evaluated. To improve this, we developed a standardized radiology report recommendation template and investigated its implementation and effectiveness.

METHODS

We prospectively studied implementation of a standardized IAM reporting template as part of an ongoing quality improvement initiative, which also included primary care provider (PCP) notifications and a straightforward clinical algorithm. Data were obtained via medical record review and a survey of radiologists. Outcomes included template adoption rates and acceptability (implementation measures), as well as the proportion of patients evaluated and time to follow-up (effectiveness outcomes).

RESULTS

Of 4,995 imaging studies, 200 (4.0%) detected a new IAM. The standardized template was used in 54 reports (27.0%). All radiologists surveyed were aware of the template, and 91% affirmed that standardized recommendations are useful. Patients whose reports included the template were more likely to have PCP follow-up after IAM discovery compared with those with no template (53.7% versus 36.3%, P = .03). After adjusting for sex, current or prior malignancy, and provider ordering the initial imaging (PCP, other outpatient provider, or emergency department or inpatient provider), odds of PCP follow-up remained 2.0 times higher (95% confidence interval 1.02-3.9). Patients whose reports included the template had a shorter time to PCP follow-up (log-rank P = .018). PCPs ultimately placed orders for biochemical testing (35.2% versus 18.5%, P = .01), follow-up imaging (40.7% versus 23.3%, P = .02), and specialist referral (22.2% versus 4.8%, P < .01) for a higher proportion of patients who received the template compared with those who did not.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of a standardized template to communicate IAM recommendations was associated with improved IAM evaluation. Our template demonstrated high acceptability, but additional strategies are necessary to optimize adoption.

Incidental Adrenal Masses: Adherence to Guidelines and Methods to Improve Initial Follow-Up, A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

Incidental adrenal masses (IAMs) are detected in approximately 1%-2% of abdominal computed tomography (CT) scans. Recent estimates suggest that more than 70-million relevant CT scans are performed annually in the United States; thus, IAMs represent a significant clinical entity. Most clinical guidelines recommend an initial follow-up evaluation that includes imaging and biochemical testing after index IAM detection.

METHODS

Systematic review of literature in the PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science databases to determine whether guidelines regarding IAM evaluation are followed and to identify effective management strategies. Our initial search was in January 2018 and updated in November, 2019.

RESULTS

31 studies met inclusion criteria. In most institutions, only a minority of patients with IAMs undergo initial follow-up imaging (median 34%, IQR 20%-50%) or biochemical testing (median 18%, IQR 15%-28%). 2 interventions shown to improve IAM evaluation are IAM-specific recommendations in radiology reports and dedicated multi-disciplinary teams. Interventions focused solely on alerting the ordering clinician or primary care provider to the presence of an IAM have not demonstrated effectiveness. Patients who are referred to an endocrinologist are more likely to have a complete IAM evaluation, but few are referred.

DISCUSSION

Most patients with an IAM do not have an initial evaluation. The radiology report has been identified as a key component in determining whether IAMs are evaluated appropriately. Care teams dedicated to management of incidental radiographic findings also improve IAM follow-up. Although the evidence base is sparse, these interventions may be a starting point for further inquiry into optimizing care in this common clinical scenario.

Electronic Health Record Closed-Loop Communication Program for Unexpected Nonemergent Findings

Background Reliance on examination reporting of unexpected imaging findings does not ensure receipt of findings or appropriate follow-up. A closed-loop communication system should include provider and patient notifications and be auditable through the electronic health record (EHR). Purpose To report the initial design of and results from using an EHR-integrated unexpected findings navigator (UFN) program that ensures closed-loop communication of unexpected nonemergent findings. Materials and Methods An EHR-integrated UFN program was designed to enable identification and communication of unexpected findings and aid in next steps in findings management. Three navigators (with prior training as radiologic technologists and sonographers) facilitated communication and documentation of results to providers and patients. Twelve months (October 2019 to October 2020) of results were retrospectively reviewed to evaluate patient demographics and program metrics. Descriptive statistics and correlation analysis were performed by using commercially available software. Results A total of 3542 examinations were reported within 12 months, representing 0.5% of all examinations performed (total of 749 649); the median patient age was 62 years (range, 1 day to 98 years; interquartile range, 23 years). Most patients were female (2029 of 3542 [57%]). Almost half of the examinations submitted were from chest radiography and CT (1618 of 3542 [46%]), followed by MRI and CT of the abdomen and pelvis (1123 of 3542 [32%]). The most common unexpected findings were potential neoplasms (391 of 3542 [11%]). The median time between examination performance and patient notification was 12 days (range, 0-136 days; interquartile range, 13 days). A total of 2127 additional imaging studies were performed, and 1078 patients were referred to primary care providers and specialists. Most radiologists (89%, 63 of 71 respondents) and providers (65%, 28 of 43 respondents) found the system useful and used it most frequently during regular business hours. Conclusion An electronic health record-integrated, navigator-facilitated, closed-loop communication program for unexpected radiologic findings led to near-complete success in notification of providers and patients and facilitated the next steps in findings management. © RSNA, 2021 See also the editorial by Safdar in this issue.

Radiologists' Increasing Role in Population Health Management: AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review

Population health management (PHM) is the holistic process of improving health outcomes of groups of individuals through the support of appropriate financial and care models. Radiologists' presence at the intersection of many aspects of healthcare, including screening, diagnostic imaging, and image-guided therapies, provides significant opportunity for increased radiologist engagement in PHM. Further, innovations in artificial intelligence and imaging informatics will serve as critical tools to improve value in healthcare through evidence-based and equitable approaches. Given radiologists' limited engagement in PHM to date, it is imperative to define the specialty's PHM priorities so that the radiologists' full value in improving population health is realized. In this expert review, we explore programs and future directions for radiology in PHM.