Adherence to ACR Incidental Finding Guidelines

A Collaborative Emergency Medicine and Radiology Pulmonary Nodule Program: Identification of Associated Efficacy and Outcomes

PURPOSE

Incidental radiologic findings are commonplace, but the episodic nature of emergency department (ED) care makes it challenging to ensure that patients obtain appropriate follow-up. Rates of follow-up range from 30% to 77%, with some studies demonstrating that more than 30% have no follow-up at all. The aim of this study is to describe and analyze the outcomes of a collaborative emergency medicine and radiology initiative to establish a formal workflow for the follow-up of pulmonary nodules identified during ED care.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed of patients referred to the pulmonary nodule program (PNP). Patients were divided into two categories: those with follow-up and those who do not have post-ED follow-up. The primary outcome was determining follow-up rates and outcomes, including patients referred for biopsy. The characteristics of patients who completed follow-up compared with those lost to follow-up were also examined.

RESULTS

A total of 574 patients were referred to the PNP. Initial follow-up was established in 390 (69.1%); 30.8% were considered lost to follow-up, and more than half of these patients did not respond to initial contact. There were minimal differences in characteristics between patients in these two categories. Of the 259 patients who completed PNP follow-up, 26 were referred for biopsy (13%).

CONCLUSIONS

The PNP provided effective transitions of care and potentially improved patient health care. Strategies to further enhance follow-up adherence will provide iterative improvement of the program. The PNP provides an implementation framework for post-ED pulmonary nodule follow-up in other health care systems and can be modified for use with other incidental diagnostic findings.

Contextual Structured Reporting in Radiology: Implementation and Long-Term Evaluation in Improving the Communication of Critical Findings

Structured reporting contributes to the completeness of radiology reports and improves quality. Both the content and the structure are essential for successful implementation of structured reporting. Contextual structured reporting is tailored to a specific scenario and can contain information retrieved from the context. Critical findings detected by imaging need urgent communication to the referring physician. According to guidelines, the occurrence of this communication should be documented in the radiology reports and should contain when, to whom and how was communicated. In free-text reporting, one or more of these required items might be omitted. We developed a contextual structured reporting template to ensure complete documentation of the communication of critical findings. The WHEN and HOW items were included automatically, and the insertion of the WHO-item was facilitated by the template. A pre- and post-implementation study demonstrated a substantial improvement in guideline adherence. The template usage improved in the long-term post-implementation study compared with the short-term results. The two most often occurring categories of critical findings are “infection / inflammation” and “oncology”, corresponding to the a large part of urgency level 2 (to be reported within 6 h) and level 3 (to be reported within 6 days), respectively. We conclude that contextual structured reporting is feasible for required elements in radiology reporting and for automated insertion of context-dependent data. Contextual structured reporting improves guideline adherence for communication of critical findings.

The Surveillance Patterns of Incidentally Detected Pancreatic Cysts Vary Widely and Infrequently Adhere to Guidelines

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to determine incidental pancreatic cyst ("cyst") surveillance patterns, predictors of receiving surveillance, and guideline adherence.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study of all patients receiving longitudinal care at a single tertiary care center with a newly diagnosed incidental pancreatic cyst over a 2-year period (2010-2011). All follow-up care was abstracted over a 5-year period.

RESULTS

Of 3241 eligible imaging studies reviewed, 100 patients with newly diagnosed incidental cysts eligible for surveillance were identified. A majority (53%) received no follow-up. We identified 4 predictors of cyst surveillance: radiology report conclusion mentioning the cyst (odds ratio [OR], 14.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.9-119) and recommending follow-up (OR, 5.5; 95% CI, 2.1-13.9), pancreas main duct dilation (OR, 10.7; 95% CI, 1.3-89), and absence of multiple cysts (OR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.1-10.0). Of the 47 patients who received surveillance, 66% met minimum surveillance imaging intervals of at least one guideline. Conversely, 21% of patients met the criteria for overutilization in at least one guideline.

CONCLUSIONS

Although guidelines recommend that surgically fit patients with incidental cysts undergo surveillance, most patients receive no follow-up. When follow-up occurs, surveillance patterns vary widely and infrequently conform to guidelines. Interventions to reduce care variation require study.