Lessons learned from a multi-site collaborative working toward a digital health use screening tool.

Digital health has the potential to expand health care and improve outcomes for patients-particularly for those with challenges to accessing in-person care. The acceleration of digital health (and particularly telemedicine) prompted by the Coronavirus-19 (COVID-19) pandemic facilitated continuity of care in some settings but left many health systems ill-prepared to address digital uptake among patients from underserved backgrounds, who already experience health disparities. As use of digital health grows and the digital divide threatens to widen, healthcare systems must develop approaches to evaluate patients' needs for digital health inclusion, and consequentially equip patients with the resources needed to access the benefits of digital health. However, this is particularly challenging given the absence of any standardized, validated multilingual screening instrument to assess patients' readiness for digital healthcare that is feasible to administer in already under-resourced health systems. This perspective is structured as follows: (1) the need for digital health exclusion risk screening, (2) our convening as a group of stakeholders, (3) our review of the known digital health screening tools and our assessment, (4) formative work with patients regarding their perceptions on language and concepts in the digital health screening tools, and (5) conclusion with recommendations for digital health advocates generated by this collaborative of digital health researchers and operations leaders. There is a need to develop a brief, effective tool to screen for digital health use that can be widely implemented in diverse populations. We include lessons learned from our experiences in developing and testing risk of digital health exclusion screening questions in our respective health systems (e.g., patient perception of questions and response options). Because we recognize that health systems across the country may be facing similar challenges and questions, this perspective aims to inform ongoing efforts in developing health system digital exclusion screening tools and advocate for their role in advancing digital health equity.

Barriers to CT Dose Optimization: The Challenge of Organizational Change.

BACKGROUND: The use of diagnostic imaging with computed tomography (CT) has risen significantly, increasing cumulative life-time exposure to ionizing radiation for patients and raising concerns about increased cancer risk. Lowering the doses would reduce concerns about associated cancer risks. PURPOSE: To determine organizational leaders' perceptions of barriers to optimizing radiation dose in CT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An observational study using semistructured interviews conducted with 26 organizational leaders from 19 health care systems in the United States, Europe, and Japan. Interviews focused on approaches the organizations used to optimize radiation dose and barriers encountered. Data were analyzed using a directed content analysis approach. RESULTS: Analysis identified six primary barriers to dose optimization: (1) resistance to change, (2) limited time and resources, (3) complex organizational structure, (4) lack of leadership support, (5) variations in CT equipment, and (6) variability in CT protocols. CONCLUSION: Barriers to optimizing CT dose across diverse health care organizations were described by organizational leaders tasked with implementing and improving CT imaging. They identified six consistent themes that reflected barriers to optimizing radiation dose at the organizational level. These barriers impeded efforts by health care organizations to optimize radiation doses to patients from CT imaging. Identifying barriers early in any improvement process is an important first step in making meaningful and sustained change.

Comparison of the Effectiveness of Single-Component and Multicomponent Interventions for Reducing Radiation Doses in Patients Undergoing Computed Tomography: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Computed tomography (CT) radiation doses vary across institutions and are often higher than needed. Objective: To assess the effectiveness of 2 interventions to reduce radiation doses in patients undergoing CT. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial included 864 080 adults older than 18 years who underwent CT of the abdomen, chest, combined abdomen and chest, or head at 100 facilities in 6 countries from November 1, 2015, to September 21, 2017. Data analysis was performed from October 4, 2017, to December 14, 2018. Interventions: Imaging facilities received audit feedback alone comparing radiation-dose metrics with those of other facilities followed by the multicomponent intervention, including audit feedback with targeted suggestions, a 7-week quality improvement collaborative, and best-practice sharing. Facilities were randomly allocated to the time crossing from usual care to the intervention. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were the proportion of high-dose CT scans and mean effective dose at the facility level. Secondary outcomes were organ doses. Outcomes after interventions were compared with those before interventions using hierarchical generalized linear models adjusting for temporal trends and patient characteristics. Results: Across 100 facilities, 864 080 adults underwent 1 156 657 CT scans. The multicomponent intervention significantly reduced proportions of high-dose CT scans, measured using effective dose. Absolute changes in proportions of high-dose scans were 1.1% to 7.9%, with percentage reductions in the proportion of high-dose scans of 4% to 30% (abdomen: odds ratio [OR], 0.82; 95% CI, 0.77-0.88; P < .001; chest: OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.86-0.99; P = .03; combined abdomen and chest: OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.41-0.59; P < .001; and head: OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.66-0.76; P < .001). Reductions in the proportions of high-dose scans were greater when measured using organ doses. The absolute reduction in the proportion of high-dose scans was 6.0% to 17.2%, reflecting 23% to 58% reductions in the proportions of high-dose scans across anatomical areas. Mean effective doses were significantly reduced after multicomponent intervention for abdomen (6% reduction, P < .001), chest (4%, P < .001), and chest and abdomen (14%, P < .001) CT scans. Larger reductions in mean organ doses were 8% to 43% across anatomical areas. Audit feedback alone reduced the proportions of high-dose scans and mean dose, but reductions in observed dose were smaller. Radiologist's satisfaction with CT image quality was unchanged and high during all periods. Conclusions and Relevance: For imaging facilities, detailed feedback on CT radiation dose combined with actionable suggestions and quality improvement education significantly reduced doses, particularly organ doses. Effects of audit feedback alone were modest. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03000751.

Organizational Factors and Quality Improvement Strategies Associated With Lower Radiation Dose From CT Examinations.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to identify organizational factors and quality improvement strategies associated with lower radiation doses from abdominal CT. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey was administered to radiology leaders, along with simultaneous measurement of CT radiation dose among 19 health care organizations with 100 imaging centers throughout the United States, Europe, and Japan, using a common dose management software system. After adjusting for patient age, gender, and size, quality improvement strategies were tested for association with mean abdominal CT radiation dose and the odds of a high-dose examination. RESULTS: Completed surveys were received from 90 imaging centers (90%), and 182,415 abdominal CT scans were collected during the study period. Radiation doses varied considerably across organizations and centers. Univariate analyses identified eight strategies and systems that were significantly associated with lower average doses or lower frequency of high doses for abdominal CT examinations: tracking patient safety measures, assessing the impact of CT changes, identifying areas for improvement, setting specific goals, organizing improvement teams, tailoring decisions to sites, testing process changes before full implementation, and standardizing workflow. These processes were associated with an 18% to 37% reduction in high-dose examinations (P < .001-.03). In multivariate analysis, having a tracking system for patient safety measures, supportive radiology leaders, and obtaining clear images were associated with a 47% reduction in high-dose examinations. CONCLUSIONS: This documentation of the relation between quality improvement strategies and radiation exposure from CT examinations has identified important information for others interested in reducing the radiation exposure of their patients.