CT, MR, NM, and PET Image Orders Clinical Trial
Official title:
The Impact of Clinical Decision Support (CDS) for Radiology: A Randomized Control Trial
Verified date | July 2020 |
Source | Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab |
Contact | n/a |
Is FDA regulated | No |
Health authority | |
Study type | Interventional |
The goal of the study is to determine whether clinical decision support (CDS) for radiology affects the number, type, or appropriateness of targeted high-cost radiology imaging orders (i.e. magnetic resonance (MR), computed tomography (CT), nuclear medicine (NM) and Positron Emission Tomography (PET) scans). The CDS will be delivered to physicians in the Aurora Health Care system. It will be delivered in Epic, an industry-standard electronic medical record software, through ACR Select, which is a leading decision support tool based on the American College of Radiology (ACR) Appropriateness Criteria (see http://www.acr.org/Quality-Safety/Appropriateness-Criteria). The ACR Select tool rates imaging orders on a scale of 1-9 with 1-3 labelled as 'usually not appropriate', 4-6 'May be appropriate', and 7-9 'usually appropriate'.
Status | Completed |
Enrollment | 3511 |
Est. completion date | December 2018 |
Est. primary completion date | December 2018 |
Accepts healthy volunteers | No |
Gender | All |
Age group | N/A and older |
Eligibility |
Inclusion Criteria: - Medical provider actively employed at Aurora with a valid Epic log-in. - Is a Medical Doctor (MD), Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine (DO), podiatrist (DPM), nurse practitioner (NP), physician assistant (PA), or certified nurse midwife (CNM) - Has imaging order permissions at Aurora Health Care. - Has at least one high- or low-cost imaging order in the year from November 1, 2015 to November 1, 2016 or is medical resident who joined Aurora since that time. Exclusion Criteria: - Opted out of the study prior to November 24, 2016 |
Country | Name | City | State |
---|---|---|---|
United States | Aurora Health Care | Milwaukee | Wisconsin |
Lead Sponsor | Collaborator |
---|---|
Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab | Aurora Health Care, Laura and John Arnold Foundation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology |
United States,
Brenner DJ, Hall EJ. Computed tomography--an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med. 2007 Nov 29;357(22):2277-84. Review. — View Citation
Callaghan BC, Kerber KA, Pace RJ, Skolarus LE, Burke JF. Headaches and neuroimaging: high utilization and costs despite guidelines. JAMA Intern Med. 2014 May;174(5):819-21. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.173. — View Citation
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 2013. National Health Expenditures 2013 Highlights. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
Consumer Reports, 2015. Surprising Dangers of CT Scans and X-rays - Consumer Reports [WWW Document]. URL http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2015/01/the-surprising-dangers-of-ct-sans-and-x-rays/index.htm (accessed 2.25.15).
Dehn, T.G., O'Connell, B., Hall, R.N., Moulton, T., 2000. Appropriateness of imaging examinations: current state and future approaches. Imaging Econ 13, 18-26.
Georgiou A, Prgomet M, Markewycz A, Adams E, Westbrook JI. The impact of computerized provider order entry systems on medical-imaging services: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2011 May 1;18(3):335-40. doi: 10.1136/amiajnl-2010-000043. Epub 2011 Mar 8. Review. — View Citation
Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, 2014. Health Care Spending and the Medicare Program. MedPAC.
Pitts, J., 2014. The Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014.
Sherman, D., 2012. Stemming the tide of overtreatment in U.S. healthcare. Reuters. Feb 16, 2012.
Shreibati JB, Baker LC. The relationship between low back magnetic resonance imaging, surgery, and spending: impact of physician self-referral status. Health Serv Res. 2011 Oct;46(5):1362-81. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2011.01265.x. Epub 2011 Apr 21. — View Citation
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2008. Medicare Part B Imaging Services: Rapid Spending Growth and Shift to Physician Offices Indicate Need for CMS to Consider Additional Management Practices [WWW Document]. URL http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-452 (accessed 2.23.15).
* Note: There are 11 references in all — Click here to view all references
Type | Measure | Description | Time frame | Safety issue |
---|---|---|---|---|
Other | Number of low-cost scans ordered | includes X-rays, ultra sounds, mammograms, fluoroscopy and bone densitometry | first 365 days after CDS is turned on for the treatment group | |
Primary | number of scans ordered that would be subject to the CDS best practice alert | Scans where the CDS would be triggered based on the criteria listed in the intervention description | first 365 days after CDS is turned on for the treatment group | |
Secondary | Number of high-cost scans (CT, MR, NM and PET) ordered | first 365 days after CDS is turned on for the treatment group | ||
Secondary | Number of scans ordered that would be subject to the CDS best practice alert and that ACR Select rates 1-3 ("usually not appropriate") | Scans where the CDS would be triggered and scored 1-3 based on the criteria listed in the intervention description. | first 365 days after CDS is turned on for the treatment group | |
Secondary | Number of scans ordered that would be subject to the CDS best practice alert and that ACR Select rates 4-6 ("may be appropriate") | Scans where the CDS would be triggered and scored 4-6 based on the criteria listed in the intervention description. | first 365 days after CDS is turned on for the treatment group |