Limited Axial Interpretation of Coronary CT Angiography in the Emergency Department Setting.

PURPOSE: Incorporating coronary CT angiographic (CCTA) imaging into emergency department (ED) workflows has been limited by the need for 24/7 real-time postprocessing. The aim of this study was to determine whether interpretation of transaxial CCTA images alone (limited axial interpretation [LI]) is noninferior to interpretation of combined transaxial and multiplanar reformation images (full interpretation [FI]) in assessing patients with acute chest pain in the ED. METHODS: CCTA examinations from 74 patients were evaluated by two radiologists, one without dedicated CCTA training and one with basic CCTA experience. Each examination was evaluated three times in separate sessions, once by LI and twice by FI, in random order. Nineteen coronary artery segments were rated as having significant stenoses (≥50%) or not. Interreader agreement was assessed using Cohen's κ statistic. The primary analysis was whether the accuracy of LI for detecting significant stenosis was noninferior to that of FI at the patient level (margin = -10%). Secondary analyses included similar analyses of sensitivity and specificity, at both the patient and vessel levels. RESULTS: Interreader agreement for significant stenosis was good for both LI and FI (κ = 0.72 vs 0.70, P = .74). Average accuracy for significant stenosis at the patient level was 90.5% for LI and 91.9% for FI, with a difference of -1.4%. The accuracy of LI was noninferior to FI, because the confidence interval did not include the noninferiority margin. Noninferiority was also found for patient-level sensitivity and for accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity at the vessel level. CONCLUSIONS: LI of the coronary arteries using transaxial CCTA images may be sufficient for the detection of significant coronary artery disease in the ED setting.

Development of PIVOT with MI: A motivational Interviewing-Based vaccine communication training for pediatric clinicians.

Delay or refusal of childhood vaccines is common and may be increasing. Pediatricians are parents' most trusted source for vaccine information, yet many struggle with how to communicate with parents who resist recommended vaccines. Evidence-based communication strategies for vaccine conversations are lacking. In this manuscript, we describe the development and perceived usefulness of a curriculum to train clinicians on a specific vaccine communication strategy as part of the PIVOT with MI study, a cluster randomized trial testing the effectiveness of this communication strategy on increasing childhood vaccination uptake among 24 pediatric practices in Colorado and Washington. The communication strategy is based on the existing evidence-based communication strategies of a presumptive format for initiating vaccine conversations and use of motivational interviewing if hesitancy persists. Focus groups and semi-structured interviews with pediatric clinicians helped inform the development of the training curriculum, which consisted of an introductory video module followed by 3 training sessions. Between September 2019 and January 2021, 134 pediatric clinicians (92 pediatricians, 42 advanced practice providers) participated in the training as part of the PIVOT with MI study. Of these, 92 % viewed an introductory video module, 93 % attended or viewed a baseline synchronous training, 82 % attended or viewed a 1st refresher training, and 77 % attended or viewed a 2nd refresher training. A follow-up survey was administered August 2020 through March 2021; among respondents (n = 100), >95 % of participants reported that each component of the training program was very or somewhat useful. These data suggest that the PIVOT with MI training intervention is a useful vaccine communication resource with the potential for high engagement among pediatric clinicians.

Validation of a Process for Shared Decision-Making in Pediatrics.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to confirm, refute, or modify a 4-step process for implementing shared decision-making (SDM) in pediatrics that involves determining 1) if the decision includes >1 medically reasonable option; 2) if one option has a favorable medical benefit-burden ratio compared to other options; and 3) parents' preferences regarding the options; then 4) calibrating the SDM approach based on other relevant decision characteristics. METHODS: We videotaped a purposive sample of pediatric inpatient and outpatient encounters at a single US children's hospital. Clinicians from 7 clinical services (craniofacial, neonatology, oncology, pulmonary, pediatric intensive care, hospital medicine, and sports medicine) were eligible. English-speaking parents of children who participated in inpatient family care conferences or outpatient problem-oriented encounters with participating clinicians were eligible. We conducted individual postencounter interviews with clinician and parent participants utilizing video-stimulated recall to facilitate reflection of decision-making that occurred during the encounter. We utilized direct content analysis with open coding of interview transcripts to determine the salience of the 4-step SDM process and identify themes that confirmed, refuted, or modified this process. RESULTS: We videotaped 30 encounters and conducted 53 interviews. We found that clinicians' and parents' experiences of decision-making confirmed each SDM step. However, there was variation in the interpretation of each step and a need for flexibility in implementing the process depending on specific decisional contexts. CONCLUSIONS: The 4-step SDM process for pediatrics appears to be salient and may benefit from further guidance about the interpretation of each step and contextual factors that support a modified approach.

Transfer patient imaging: secondary interpretation reimbursement.

INTRODUCTION: Trauma center radiologists vary widely in the degree to which they provide secondary interpretations for transferred patients' advanced imaging. A general perception of uncertainty over reimbursement for these exams often results in reluctance to provide routine overreads. The purpose of this study is to assess the difference in reimbursement rates between primary interpretations and secondary interpretations in the emergency department (ED) setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Billing records for the three CT procedures most commonly performed in a single, major level 1 trauma center ED from January 1, 2021, to December 31, 2021, constituted the dataset. Gross charges, total receipts, and payer status were recorded for each exam, and reimbursement rates calculated. RESULTS: In total, 19,754 exams met the inclusion criteria. Primary interpretation was performed on 16,507 (83.6%) exams and secondary interpretation on 3247 (16.4%). For the three CPT codes examined, the average reimbursement percentage was 32.9% for primary interpretation and 43.5% for secondary interpretation. The average reimbursement percentage for commercial payers was 56.5% for primary interpretation and 65.9% for secondary interpretation. The average reimbursement percentage for Health Insurance Exchange payers was 58.5% for primary interpretation and 59.5% for secondary interpretation. The average reimbursement percentage for Medicaid was 24.7% for primary interpretation and 39.9% for secondary interpretation. The average reimbursement percentage for Medicare was 31.1% for primary interpretation and 30.2% for secondary interpretation. The average reimbursement percentage for self-paying patients was 2.3% for primary interpretation and 3.5% for secondary interpretation. CONCLUSION: Regardless of payer status, reimbursement for secondary interpretation of the three most common transfer patients' CT exams is near or greater than that of primary interpretations.

Transfer Patient Imaging: Assessment of the Impact of Discrepancies Identified by Emergency Radiologists.

PURPOSE: Advanced imaging examinations of emergently transferred patients (ETPs) are overread to various degrees by receiving institutions. The practical clinical impact of these second opinions has not been studied in the past. The purpose of this study is to determine if emergency radiology overreads change emergency medicine decision making on ETPs in the emergency department (ED). METHODS: All CT and MRI examinations on patients transferred to a level I trauma center during calendar year 2018 were routinely overread by emergency radiologists and discrepancies with the outside report electronically flagged. All discrepant reports compared with the outside interpretations were reviewed by one of four emergency medicine physicians. Comparing the original and final reports, reviewers identified changes in patient management that could be attributed to the additional information contained in the final report. Changes in patient care were categorized as affecting ED management, disposition, follow-up, or consulting services. RESULTS: Over a 12-month period, 5,834 patients were accepted in transfer. Among 5,631 CT or MRI examinations with outside reports available, 669 examinations (12%) had at least one discrepancy in the corresponding outside report. In 219 examinations (33%), ED management was changed by discrepancies noted on the final report; patient disposition was affected in 84 (13%), outpatient follow-up in 54 (8%), and selection of consulting services in 411 (61%), and ED stay was extended in 544 (81%). Discrepant findings affected decision making in 613 of 669 of examinations (92%). CONCLUSION: Emergency radiology overreading of transferred patients' advanced imaging examinations provided actionable additional information to emergency medicine physicians in the care of 613 of 669 (92%) examinations with discrepant findings. This added value is worth the effort to design workflows to routinely overread CT and MRI examinations of ETPs.

Transfer Patient Imaging: A Novel Peer Feedback Program Beyond Institutional Boundaries.

BACKGROUND: At our level 1 trauma center, we overread cross-sectional scans on all transferred patients, initially reported by community radiologists (CR). We designed a unique peer feedback learning model to address discrepancies encountered with outside overreads with the goal of practice improvement on the part of the CRs. Although there is ample literature on internal peer review and peer learning programs, no publications address errors committed by peers outside institutional boundaries. In this paper we describe our model and report a survey analyzing the perception of the program by the CRs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Outside CT and MR exams and reports of patients transferred to our level 1 trauma center were imported into PACS and prospectively overread by specialist trauma radiologists. Our report contained a summary of the outside findings as well as our findings. In the case of a significant discrepancy, a paper copy of our final report was sent by US mail to the originating CR. When the program had been active for 18 months, an invitation to participate in a survey was sent to all radiologists who had been sent reports. RESULTS: Eight thousand three hundred forty patients were transferred, of which 4331 (52%) had 9175 exams with outside reports (8666 CT scans and 509 MRI). One hundred seventy six final report letters containing significant discrepancies were sent to 139 individual radiologists. These 139 radiologists also later received our survey letter. Thirty-eight (27%) responses were received. Thirty-two respondents (84%) recalled receiving the report and reviewed the exam in question. Twenty-eight of them (85%) agreed with the overread and 30 (88%) believed that our feedback program should be continued. CONCLUSION: We have designed a novel peer feedback learning model to address discrepancies in outside overreads which is administratively simple and well received by the CRs getting feedback. Those CR who responded to the survey rated the experience favorably and wanted the practice continued, although the overall response rate did not allow statistical analysis. Also, institutions trying to design similar or new peer learning models can benefit from our experience.

Fidelity evaluation of the dialogue around respiratory illness treatment (DART) program communication training.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate receipt fidelity of communication training content included in a multifaceted intervention known to reduce antibiotic over-prescribing for pediatric acute respiratory tract infections (ARTIs), by examining the degree to which clinicians implemented the intended communication behavior changes. METHODS: Parents were surveyed regarding clinician communication behaviors immediately after attending 1026 visits by children 6 months to < 11 years old diagnosed with ARTIs by 53 clinicians in 18 pediatric practices. Communication outcomes analyzed were whether clinicians: (A) provided both a combined (negative + positive) treatment recommendation and a contingency plan (full implementation); (B) provided either a combined treatment recommendation or a contingency plan (partial implementation); or (C) provided neither (no implementation). We used mixed effects multinomial logistic regression to determine whether these 3 communication outcomes changed between baseline and the time periods following each of 3 training modules. RESULTS: After completing the communication training, the adjusted probability of clinicians fully implementing the intended communication behavior changes increased by an absolute 8.1% compared to baseline (95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 2.4%, 13.8%, p = .005). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support the receipt fidelity of the intervention's communication training content. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Clinicians can be trained to implement communication behaviors that may aid in reducing antibiotic over-prescribing for ARTIs.

What's in a Name? Report of the ACR Task Force on General Radiology and Multi-Subspecialization.

The ACR Council passed Resolution 47 at its 2020 annual meeting establishing a representative task force (TF) to explore the concept of the "multispecialty radiologist," previously proposed in 2012. The TF held eight virtual meetings over 8 months, considered data from a 2020 ACR Membership Tracking Survey, conducted a review of current literature, and collected anecdotal experience from TF members and ACR leadership. ACR legal counsel and a cross-section of ACR Commissions and Committees also provided input. The TF concluded that there is scant interest from the radiology community in the multispecialty radiologist title and no agreed-upon definition for the term. Radiologists may identify as diagnostic or subspecialty radiologists; however, the roles they fill in clinical practice include general, multispecialty, and subspecialized radiology. The TF proposes definitions for each of these terms to support radiologist recruitment aligned with optimal patient care in the practice community and to improve the quality of data collection about the field. To reduce ambiguity, the TF proposes adoption of the defined terms by the radiology community, including radiologist recruiters and employers, and suggests ways in which resident training and the ABR board examination can be adapted to support this new structure. Additionally, as part of an exploration of hyperspecialization and trainee preparedness for clinical practice, the TF discussed the challenges faced by community-based practices seeking to provide a full range of high-quality, radiologist-delivered diagnostic and interventional services to their patient populations.

Transfer patient imaging: discordances between community and subspecialist emergency radiologists.

PURPOSE: To determine the rate and nature of significant discordances between community and subspecialist emergency radiologists' interpretations of cross-sectional exams performed on patients transferred to our trauma center. METHODS: Outside hospital CT and MRI exams performed on transfer trauma patients are routinely overread by subspecialist emergency radiologists, specifying either concordance or discordance with the interpretation by the community radiologist. We evaluated the discordant reports for clinical significance, defined as an additional finding or difference in interpretation which was likely to affect patient management. The total rate of significant discordances, rate by modality, rate by body region, and rate per patient transferred were calculated. The most common errors were identified, and the distribution of errors among individual community radiologists was examined. RESULTS: 9175 exams were reviewed. Significant discordances were encountered in 4.1% of exams: 3.9% for CT and 6.7% for MRI; 5.1% for head and neck exams, 3.3% for spine, 3.8% for torso, and 2.9% for extremities. The discordance rate per patient transferred was 7.7%. The most common discordances involved missing injuries to the cranio-cervical junction, missing or misinterpreting vascular injuries in the neck, and incompletely characterizing facial fractures. Discordances were evenly spread among 220 community radiologists. CONCLUSION: There is frequent discordance between community and emergency radiologists' interpretations of CT and MRI exams, leading to a change in transferred patient management. Thus, trauma center radiologists provide added value overreading these patients' exams. It is difficult to predict which patients or exams will contain discordances, justifying routine overreading of all such exams.

"It's Like 1998 Again": Why Parents Still Refuse and Delay Vaccines.

We conducted a qualitative study from 2018 to 2019 to update the reasons why US parents' refuse or delay vaccines. Four focus groups and 4 semi-structured interviews involving 33 primary care pediatric providers were conducted in Washington and Colorado. A thematic analysis was conducted to identify themes related to reasons for parental refusal or delay. Five predominant themes were identified: (1) vaccine safety, (2) relative influence of information sources, decision-makers, and timing, (3) low perceived risk of contracting vaccine-preventable disease, (4) lack of trust, and (5) religious objection. Vaccine safety was the theme mentioned most frequently by providers (N = 45 times by 26 providers) and religious objection to vaccination was referred to the least (N = 6 times by 6 providers). Provider-reported reasons for parental refusal or delay of childhood vaccines in 2018 to 2019 remain similar to those reported in previous studies.

Through-the-Glass Portable Radiography of Patients in Isolation Units: Experience During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVE. To reduce staff exposure to infection and maintain operational efficiency, we have developed a protocol to image patients using portable chest radiography through the glass of an isolation room. This technique is safe and easy to implement. Images are of comparable quality to standard portable radiographs. CONCLUSION. This protocol, used routinely by our department during the COVID-19 pandemic, can be applied to any situation in which the patient is placed in isolation.

'Presumptively Initiating Vaccines and Optimizing Talk with Motivational Interviewing' (PIVOT with MI) trial: a protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial of a clinician vaccine communication intervention.

INTRODUCTION: A key contributor to underimmunisation is parental refusal or delay of vaccines due to vaccine concerns. Many clinicians lack confidence in communicating with vaccine-hesitant parents (VHP) and perceive that their discussions will do little to change parents' minds. Improving clinician communication with VHPs is critical to increasing childhood vaccine uptake. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We describe the protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial to test the impact of a novel, multifaceted clinician vaccine communication strategy on child immunisation status. The trial will be conducted in 24 primary care practices in two US states (Washington and Colorado). The strategy is called Presumptively Initiating Vaccines and Optimizing Talk with Motivational Interviewing (PIVOT with MI), and involves clinicians initiating the vaccine conversation with all parents of young children using the presumptive format, and among those parents who resist vaccines, pivoting to using MI. Our primary outcome is the immunisation status of children of VHPs at 19 months, 0 day of age expressed as the percentage of days underimmunised from birth to 19 months for 22 doses of eight vaccines recommended during this interval. Secondary outcomes include clinician experience communicating with VHPs, parent visit experience and clinician adherence to the PIVOT with MI communication strategy. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study is approved by the following institutional review boards: Colorado Multiple Institutional Review Board, Washington State Institutional Review Board and Swedish Health Services Institutional Review Board. Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed manuscripts and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03885232.

Reducing Antibiotic Prescribing in Primary Care for Respiratory Illness.

BACKGROUND: One-third of outpatient antibiotic prescriptions for pediatric acute respiratory tract infections (ARTIs) are inappropriate. We evaluated a distance learning program's effectiveness for reducing outpatient antibiotic prescribing for ARTI visits. METHODS: In this stepped-wedge clinical trial run from November 2015 to June 2018, we randomly assigned 19 pediatric practices belonging to the Pediatric Research in Office Settings Network or the NorthShore University HealthSystem to 4 wedges. Visits for acute otitis media, bronchitis, pharyngitis, sinusitis, and upper respiratory infection for children 6 months to <11 years old without recent antibiotic use were included. Clinicians received the intervention as 3 program modules containing online tutorials and webinars on evidence-based communication strategies and antibioti c prescribing, booster video vignettes, and individualized antibiotic prescribing feedback reports over 11 months. The primary outcome was overall antibiotic prescribing rates for all ARTI visits. Mixed-effects logistic regression compared prescribing rates during each program module and a postintervention period to a baseline control period. Odds ratios were converted to adjusted rate ratios (aRRs) for interpretability. RESULTS: Among 72 723 ARTI visits by 29 762 patients, intention-to-treat analyses revealed a 7% decrease in the probability of antibiotic prescribing for ARTI overall between the baseline and postintervention periods (aRR 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90-0.96). Second-line antibiotic prescribing decreased for streptococcal pharyngitis (aRR 0.66; 95% CI, 0.50-0.87) and sinusitis (aRR 0.59; 95% CI, 0.44-0.77) but not for acute otitis media (aRR 0.93; 95% CI, 0.83-1.03). Any antibiotic prescribing decreased for viral ARTIs (aRR 0.60; 95% CI, 0.51-0.70). CONCLUSIONS: This program reduced antibiotic prescribing during outpatient ARTI visits; broader dissemination may be beneficial.

CT volumetric measurements correlate with split renal function in renal trauma.

PURPOSE: To evaluate whether volumetric measurements of segmental vascular injuries (SVIs) based on computed tomography (CT) imaging obtained during an initial trauma survey correlate with future nuclear medicine (NM) split renal function. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of renal trauma patients treated at a level 1 trauma center between 2008 and 2015. Patients with unilateral SVIs on initial CT imaging with follow-up NM renal scans were evaluated. CT-based split renal function was calculated by assessing the ratio of ipsilateral uninjured kidney volume to bilateral total uninjured kidney volume by two separate radiologists. RESULTS: Eight patients with unilateral SVIs on initial CT trauma evaluation underwent follow-up NM renal scans at a mean of 4 months (range 2-6) after injury. Mean NM split renal function of the injured kidney was 43% (range 22-57). Based on the CT volumetric measurements of the affected kidney, mean percent injured was 23% (range 7-62) with a calculated mean split renal function of 44% (range 23-60). Calculated mean CT split function correlated with NM split function (R = 0.89). Intraclass correlation measuring inter-rater reliability for CT volumetric measurements was 0.94 (95% confidence interval 0.72-0.99). CONCLUSION: Volumetric measurements based on CT imaging obtained during the initial trauma evaluation correlated with future NM split renal function after SVIs with high inter-rater reliability. This method utilizes pre-existing imaging and avoids additional radiation exposure, work burden, and financial cost from a NM scan. Further evaluation is required to assess feasibility with more complex injuries.

Is it safe to inject contrast through the side arm of an introducer sheath? An in vitro study.

PURPOSE: Occasionally, a patient requiring computed tomography (CT) with poor venous access or in an unstable condition may have a sheath as their only form of IV access. Many institutions prohibit contrast power injection through the side ports, for concern for rupture. We hypothesize that under conditions encountered in CT scanning, the side arm of the sheath introducer is safe for power injection of contrast material. METHODS: In this in vitro study, we injected contrast at different flow rates varying from 2 to 8 ml/s, through the side port of the sheath. Time-pressure graphs were obtained for each injection from the injector display. The assembly was observed for any signs of leakage or material failure. RESULTS: There was not a single event of leak, rupture, or displacement. Maximum pressures were within the range of conventional contrast administrations. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that iodinated contrast can safely be injected through the side port of a venous sheath.

Emergency Radiology: An Underappreciated Source of Liability Risk.

PURPOSE: While several studies analyze radiology malpractice lawsuits, none specifically examines the site of service. The purpose of this study is to estimate the relative likelihood of a lawsuit arising from a radiology study performed in emergency (ED), inpatient (IP) and outpatient (OP) settings. METHODS: Referrals from a malpractice review consulting company over a six year period were compared to the 2016 Medicare Part B file and stratified by site of service. The proportion of exams for each site of service was estimated, and using absolute differences in proportions and odds ratios (ORs), differences in the place of service were calculated. RESULTS: The Cleareview cohort contained 25 (17%) IP, 56 (38%) OP, and 68 (46%) ED exams. In 2016, Medicare assigned benefits for 27,009,053 (20%) IP, 84,075,848 (62%) OP and 23,964,794 (18%) ED exams. The ORs (Cleareview: Medicare) of the ED to IP, OP, and IP+OP were 3.07 (95% CI: 1.56-6.03), 4.26 (95% CI: 2.76-6.59), 3.89 (95% CI: 2.60-5.83), respectively. By contrast, the OR for IP:OP between Cleareview and Medicare was not significantly different than 1 (OR: 1.39, 95% CI: 0.68-2.83, P = .38). DISCUSSION: Radiological studies performed in the ED accounted for a disproportionate number of liability claims against radiologists. Further study is warranted to confirm this finding with a more robust data set.