RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Timely and comprehensive diagnostic image sharing across institutional and regional boundaries can produce multiple benefits while supporting integrated models of care. In Ontario, Canada, the Diagnostic Imaging Common Service (DICS) was created as a centralized imaging repository to enable the sharing and viewing of diagnostic images and associated reports across hospital-based and community-based clinicians throughout the province. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were as follows: (1) to explore real-world utilization and perceived clinical value of the DICS following the provision of system-wide access and (2) to identify strategies to optimize the technology platform functionality and encourage adoption. METHODS: This multimethod study included semistructured interviews with physicians and administrative stakeholders and descriptive analysis of the current DICS usage data. RESULTS: In this study, 41 participants were interviewed, that is, 34 physicians and 7 administrative stakeholders. The following 4 key themes emerged: (1) utilization of the DICS depended on the awareness of the technology and the preferred channels for accessing images, which varied widely, (2) clinical responsibilities and available institutional resources were the drivers of utilization (or lack thereof), (3) centralized image repositories were perceived to offer value at the patient, clinician, and health care system levels, and (4) the enabling factors to realize value included aspects of technology infrastructure (ie, available functionality) alongside policy supports. High-volume DICS usage was not evenly distributed throughout the province. CONCLUSIONS: Suboptimal adoption of the DICS was driven by poor awareness and variations in the clinical workflow. Alignment with physician workflow, policy supports, and investment in key technological features and infrastructure would improve functionality and data comprehensiveness, thereby optimizing health system performance, patient and provider experience, population health, and health care costs.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Many evidence-based recommendations advocate against the use of routine chest x-rays for asymptomatic, low-risk outpatients; however, it is unclear how regularly chest x-rays are ordered in primary care. Our study aims to describe the frequency of, and variation in, routine chest x-ray use in low-risk outpatients among primary care physicians. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, Ontario residents aged 18 years and older with a periodic health examination (PHE) between Apr. 1, 2010, and Mar. 31, 2015, were identified via administrative claims data. Patients with a recent history (last 3 years) of any of the following were excluded: cardiac or pulmonary disease, high-risk comorbidity (e.g., diabetes), consultations/visits or procedures involving cardiac or pulmonary specialists, cancer and severe chest trauma. The primary outcome, a routine chest x-ray, was defined as at least 1 chest x-ray claim within 7 days after a PHE. RESULTS: While a routine chest x-ray followed only 2.42% of 2 847 508 PHEs, one-quarter of family physicians (499/2031) ordered chest x-rays for more than 5.0% of their PHEs (interquartile range 1.5%-5.0%) and accounted for 62.9% of all tests observed. Routine chest x-ray use declined by 2.0% per quarter (adjusted rate ratio 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.97-0.98). Older age (45-64 yr v. 18-44 yr, adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.82, 95% CI 1.78-1.86; ≥ 65 yr v. 18-44 yr, adjusted OR 2.48, 95% CI 2.39-2.58) and male sex of the patient (OR 2.19, 95% CI 2.14-2.24) and male sex of the provider (OR 1.55, 95% CI 1.51-1.59) were significantly associated with increased odds of a routine chest x-ray being ordered. INTERPRETATION: It is relatively uncommon for a chest x-ray to be ordered as part of a PHE in Ontario; however, the substantial variation observed among physicians suggests potential for interventions targeted at the most frequent users.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: A continued technical challenge for surgeons performing bone-patellar tendon-bone anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with endoscopic techniques is graft-tunnel mismatch. If tibial tunnel and intra-articular distances could be reliably estimated, surgeons could adjust the length of the femoral tunnel to minimize graft-tunnel mismatch. PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: To determine whether arthroscopic measurement of the following was reliable: femoral tunnel distance (FTD), tibial tunnel distance (TTD), intra-articular distance (IAD), and total distance (TD; sum of these 3 measurements). It was hypothesized that intraoperative measurement of these distances would be reliable. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. METHODS: Eight sports fellowship-trained orthopedic surgeons independently performed arthroscopic measurements of the FTD, TTD, IAD, and TD in 7 cadaveric knees in which femoral and tibial tunnels had been drilled. Each surgeon performed the measurements twice using an EndoButton depth gauge. Following this, each parameter was measured open with a medial parapatellar approach. Finally, a computed tomography (CT) scan of each knee was performed, with the FTD, TTD, and IAD measured by a musculoskeletal radiologist. Inter- and intrarater reliability of the arthroscopic measurements was calculated, as well as the correlation between arthroscopic measurements and open and CT measurements. RESULTS: Interrater reliability for the arthroscopic measurements was 0.8 for FTD, 0.89 for TTD, 0.61 for IAD, and 0.76 (range, 0.54-0.93) for TD. Intrarater reliability was 0.94 for FTD, 0.97 for TTD, 0.83 for IAD, and 0.93 for TD. The correlation between arthroscopic and open measurements was 0.9 for FTD, 0.94 for TTD, 0.4 for IAD, and 0.84 for TD. The correlation between arthroscopic and CT measurements was 0.85 for FTD, 0.92 for TTD, and 0.71 for IAD. CONCLUSION: The results of this study show that arthroscopic measurement of FTD and TTD has a high degree of intra- and interrater reliability, while that of IAD and TD demonstrates high intrarater reliability but moderate interrater reliability. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Reliable measurement of the TTD and IAD can potentially allow adjustment of the FTD, minimizing graft-tunnel mismatch in endoscopic ACL reconstruction.
RESUMO
We compared two methods for osteoporotic vertebral fracture (VF) assessment on lateral spine radiographs, the Genant semiquantitative (GSQ) technique and a modified algorithm-based qualitative (mABQ) approach. We evaluated 4465 women and 1771 men aged ≥50 years from the Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study with available X-ray images at baseline. Observer agreement was lowest for grade 1 VFs determined by GSQ. Among physician readers, agreement was greater for VFs diagnosed by mABQ (ranging from 0.62 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00-1.00] to 0.88 [0.76-1.00]) than by GSQ (ranging from 0.38 [0.17-0.60] to 0.69 [0.54-0.85]). GSQ VF prevalence (16.4% [95% CI 15.4-17.4]) and incidence (10.2/1000 person-years [9.2; 11.2]) were higher than with the mABQ method (prevalence 6.7% [6.1-7.4] and incidence 6.3/1000 person-years [5.5-7.1]). Women had more prevalent and incident VFs relative to men as defined by mABQ but not as defined by GSQ. Prevalent GSQ VFs were predominantly found in the mid-thoracic spine, whereas prevalent mABQ and incident VFs by both methods co-localized to the junction of the thoracic and lumbar spine. Prevalent mABQ VFs compared with GSQ VFs were more highly associated with reduced adjusted L1 to L4 bone mineral density (BMD) (-0.065 g/cm2 [-0.087 to -0.042]), femoral neck BMD (-0.051 g/cm2 [-0.065 to -0.036]), and total hip BMD (-0.059 g/cm2 [-0.076 to -0.041]). Prevalent mABQ VFs compared with prevalent GSQ were also more highly associated with incident VF by GSQ (odds ratio [OR] = 3.3 [2.2-5.0]), incident VF by mABQ (9.0 [5.3-15.3]), and incident non-vertebral major osteoporotic fractures (1.9 [1.2-3.0]). Grade 1 mABQ VFs, but not grade 1 GSQ VFs, were associated with incident non-vertebral major osteoporotic fractures (OR = 3.0 [1.4-6.5]). We conclude that defining VF by mABQ is preferred to the use of GSQ for clinical assessments. © 2017 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.
