A Survey of Interventional Radiologists Regarding the Use of Morbidity and Mortality Conferencing in Departmental Quality Improvement Programs.

PURPOSE: To investigate the degree to which morbidity and mortality (M&M) conferencing is utilized in interventional radiology (IR), identify impediments to its adoption, and assess the experience of those using this tool. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Members of the Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR) were offered a 9-question survey of practices and experiences regarding M&M conferencing within their quality assessment (QA) programs. RESULTS: Among 604 respondents, 37.8% were university-based practitioners and 60% were from outside of university practices. Of all respondents, 43% reported practicing 100% IR, with 28.5% practicing IR 75%-99% and 11% practicing IR <50% of the time. The use of M&M conferencing was significantly greater in university practices (90.7%) than in nonuniversity practices (37.1%) and among practitioners performing at least 75% IR (71.2%) than among those practicing <75% (28.8%). The conferences were held monthly (66.6%) or more often, and the majority (56%) of the events identified were scored using the SIR severity score. Approximately 20% of M&M conferences were multidisciplinary, shared most commonly with vascular surgery. The reasons cited for not using M&M included the lack of time and the logistical challenges of the process. However, among those who participate in M&M conferences, the QA goals of the conference were met at very high rates. CONCLUSIONS: M&M conferencing is well established in university IR programs and among full-time practitioners but much less so elsewhere. For those sites that do not utilize M&M conferencing, there may be a considerable benefit to addressing the obstacles that are limiting their implementation of this tool.

Clinical Importance of Incidentally Detected Hyperenhancing Liver Observations on Portal Venous Phase Computed Tomography in Patients Without Known Malignancy or Liver Disease.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to determine the prevalence of clinically important masses among incidental hyperenhancing liver observations on portal venous phase computed tomography (CT) in patients without known malignancy or liver disease. METHODS: Retrospective search of portal venous phase CTs was performed to identify hyperenhancing liver observations in patients without cancer or liver disease. Observations were assigned a morphology of homogeneous, hemangioma, or heterogeneous. The reference standard was pathology (n = 2), liver protocol CT/magnetic resonance imaging (n = 40), follow-up portal venous phase CT for 2 years or more (n = 81), or clinical follow-up for 5 years or more (n = 107). RESULTS: There were no clinically important masses among 83 observations with homogeneous morphology or 110 with hemangioma morphology. There were 2 clinically important masses (1 hepatocellular carcinoma and 1 hepatic adenoma) among 37 (5.4%) heterogeneous morphology observations. CONCLUSIONS: Incidental hyperenhancing liver observations on portal venous phase CT with homogeneous or typical hemangioma morphology in patients without known cancer or liver disease are highly likely benign.

Diagnostic test interpretation and referral delay in patients with interstitial lung disease.

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic delays are common in patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD). A substantial percentage of patients experience a diagnostic delay in the primary care setting, but the factors underpinning this observation remain unclear. In this multi-center investigation, we assessed ILD reporting on diagnostic test interpretation and its association with subsequent pulmonology referral by a primary care physician (PCP). METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis of patients referred to the ILD programs at UC-Davis and University of Chicago by a PCP within each institution was performed. Computed tomography (CT) of the chest and abdomen and pulmonary function test (PFT) were reviewed to identify the date ILD features were first present and determine the time from diagnostic test to pulmonology referral. The association between ILD reporting on diagnostic test interpretation and pulmonology referral was assessed, as was the association between years of diagnostic delay and changes in fibrotic features on longitudinal chest CT. RESULTS: One hundred and forty-six patients were included in the final analysis. Prior to pulmonology referral, 66% (n = 97) of patients underwent chest CT, 15% (n = 21) underwent PFT and 15% (n = 21) underwent abdominal CT. ILD features were reported on 84, 62 and 33% of chest CT, PFT and abdominal CT interpretations, respectively. ILD reporting was associated with shorter time to pulmonology referral when undergoing chest CT (1.3 vs 15.1 months, respectively; p = 0.02), but not PFT or abdominal CT. ILD reporting was associated with increased likelihood of pulmonology referral within 6 months of diagnostic test when undergoing chest CT (rate ratio 2.17, 95% CI 1.03-4.56; p = 0.04), but not PFT or abdominal CT. Each year of diagnostic delay was associated with a 1.8% increase in percent fibrosis on chest CT. Patients with documented dyspnea had shorter time to chest CT acquisition and pulmonology referral than patients with documented cough and lung crackles. CONCLUSIONS: Determinants of ILD diagnostic delays in the primary care setting include underreporting of ILD features on diagnostic testing and prolonged time to pulmonology referral even when ILD is reported. Interventions to modulate these factors may reduce ILD diagnostic delays in the primary care setting.