Expected Organizational Costs for Inserting Prevalence Information Into Lumbar Spine Imaging Reports.

BACKGROUND: Modifying physician behavior to more closely align with guideline-based care can be challenging. Few effective strategies resulting in appropriate spine-related health care have been reported. The Lumbar Imaging With Reporting of Epidemiology (LIRE) intervention did not result in reductions in spine care but did in opioid prescriptions written. OBJECTIVES: To estimate organizational resource needs and costs associated with implementing a pragmatic, decision support-type intervention that inserted age- and modality-matched prevalence information for common lumbar spine imaging findings, using site-based resource use data from the LIRE trial. RESEARCH DESIGN: Time and cost estimation associated with implementing the LIRE intervention in a health organization. SUBJECTS: Providers and patients assessed in the LIRE trial. MEASURES: Expected personnel costs required to implement the LIRE intervention. RESULTS: Annual salaries were converted to daily average per person costs, ranging from $400 to $2,200 per day (base case) for personnel (range: $300-$2,600). Estimated total average cost for implementing LIRE was $5,009 (range: $2,651-$12,020), including conducting pilot testing with providers. Costs associated with a small amount of time for a radiologist (6-12 hours) and imaging-ordering providers (1-8 hours each) account for approximately 75% of the estimated total cost. CONCLUSIONS: The process of implementing an intervention for lumbar spine imaging reports containing age- and modality-appropriate epidemiological benchmarks for common imaging findings required radiologists, imaging-ordering providers, information technology specialists, and limited testing and monitoring. The LIRE intervention seems to be a relatively low-cost, evidence-based, complementary tool that can be easily integrated into the reporting of spine imaging.

"What Program Directors Think" V: Results of the 2019 Spring Survey of the Association of Program Directors in Radiology (APDR).

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The Association of Program Directors in Radiology (APDR) surveys its membership annually on hot topics and new developments in radiology residency training. Here we report the results of that annual survey. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A web-based survey was posed to the APDR membership in the Fall of 2018. Members were asked 43 questions on program staffing, resident education resources/funding, impact of the integrated-Interventional Radiology residency program on Diagnostic Radiology program resources, resident interest in imaging informatics, Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requirements on resident practice habits data reporting, institutional reliance on residents for clinical coverage, teaching format in the post-oral board era, resident conference attendance, confidentiality of the Match rank list, Early Specialization in Interventional Radiology pathway recruitment and selection, Diagnostic Radiology and Interventional Radiology program relationships, independent resident call, pediatric radiology training, diversity and unconscious bias training, and social media in radiology education. RESULTS: Responses were collected electronically, results were tallied using Qualtrics software, and qualitative responses were tabulated or summarized as comments. There were 86 respondents with a response rate of 31.3%. CONCLUSION: Survey result highlights include perceived resident interest in imaging informatics with the vast majority of residency programs offering an informatics curriculum; the provision of resident practice habits data by nearly all residency programs despite lack of clarity surrounding this Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requirement; continued use of case-taking in the post-oral boards era; frequent disclosure of the Match rank list to departmental and hospital administration; low penetration of unconscious bias training in academic radiology; and finally, the successful integration of interventional and diagnostic radiology training programs.

Idiopathic spinal cord herniation: an imaging diagnosis with a significant delay.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Idiopathic spinal cord herniation (ISCH) is an underrecognized entity that is often underappreciated by the neurosurgery and neuroradiologic communities. This leads to delayed diagnosis, multiple imaging studies, other diagnostic tests, inappropriate surgeries, and repeat office visits. PURPOSE: To evaluate common associations between ISCH and patient demographics/clinical presentation and to analyze the potential for delayed diagnosis. PATIENT SAMPLE: Patient sample included those diagnosed with ISCH on imaging at our institution from June 20, 2005 to December 3, 2012. OUTCOME MEASURES: These were based on the patient improvement/stability/decline based on the patients' most recent clinic/office visit when compared with initial presentation. METHODS: A retrospective search of radiology reports was performed using Illuminate software from June 20, 2005 to December 3, 2012, using the search term "idiopathic spinal cord herniation." Clinical data were reviewed including patient's age, sex, presenting clinical symptoms, number and type of imaging studies performed as part of the workup, other diagnostic tests, pain procedures, surgeries, and time between original presentation and diagnosis of ISCH on imaging. RESULTS: A total of 55 patients had the search term "idiopathic spinal cord herniation" included in their radiology report, of which 37 patients were found to meet the imaging and clinical diagnosis of ISCH. The median time from presentation to imaging diagnosis was 20 months in patients younger than 60 years and 5 months in those 60 years or older (p=.02). Of the 37 patients evaluated, 27 (73%) had no change in symptoms, 5 patients (14%) experienced worsening of symptoms, and 5 (14%) experienced symptom improvement from original presentation to most recent office visit. Among all patients evaluated, three underwent repair of the ventral dural defect in ISCH, resulting in clinical improvement. There was a median of nine outpatient office visits, three magnetic resonance images (MRIs), and one electromyography (EMG) per patient presenting with ISCH. The most frequent complaints were neck/upper back pain in 70%, upper/lower extremity numbness/paresthesias/weakness in 49%, hyperreflexia in 22%, and burning chest pain in 22%. CONCLUSIONS: Prolonged time to diagnosis and subsequent treatment of ISCH protracts patient symptoms and is associated with redundant diagnostic tests and patient visits. Earlier use of MRI in younger patients (younger than 60 years) may be warranted in those with a clinical presentation suggestive of Brown-Sequard symptomatology. Increasing recognition of ISCH in imaging and surgical communities would lead to improved patient care.