CT Pulmonary Angiogram Clinical Pretest Probability Tool: Impact on Emergency Department Utilization.

Rachel P Rosovsky, Mark Isabelle, Nooshin Abbasi, Nicole Vetrano, Sanjay Saini, Sayon Dutta, David Lucier, Amita Sharma, Andetta Hunsaker, Stanley Hochberg, Ali S Raja, Ramin Khorasani, Ronilda Lacson
{"title":"CT Pulmonary Angiogram Clinical Pretest Probability Tool: Impact on Emergency Department Utilization.","authors":"Rachel P Rosovsky, Mark Isabelle, Nooshin Abbasi, Nicole Vetrano, Sanjay Saini, Sayon Dutta, David Lucier, Amita Sharma, Andetta Hunsaker, Stanley Hochberg, Ali S Raja, Ramin Khorasani, Ronilda Lacson","doi":"10.1016/j.jacr.2024.07.024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Currently, computed tomographic pulmonary angiogram (CTPA) for evaluating acute pulmonary embolism (PE) in Emergency Departments (EDs) is overused and with low yields. The goal of this study is to assess the impact of an evidence-based clinical decision support (CDS) tool, aimed at optimizing appropriate use of CTPA for evaluating PE.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study was performed at EDs in a large healthcare system and included 9 academic and community hospitals. The primary outcome was the percent difference in utilization (number of CTPA performed/number of ED visits) and secondary outcome was yield (percentage of CTPA positive for acute PE), comparing 12 months before (6/1/2021-5/31/2022) vs. 12 months after (6/1/2022-5/31/2023) a system-wide implementation of the CDS. Univariate and multivariable analyses using logistic regression were performed to assess factors associated with diagnosis of acute PE. Statistical process control (SPC) charts were used to assess monthly trends in utilization and yield.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 931,677 visits to Emergency Departments, 28,101 CTPAs were performed on 24,675 patients. 14,825 CTPAs were performed among 455,038 visits (3.26%) pre-intervention; 13,276 among 476,639 visits (2.79%) post-intervention, a 14.51% relative decrease in CTPA utilization (chi-square, p<0.001). CTPA yield remained unchanged (1371/14825=9.25% pre- vs. 1184/13276=8.92% post-intervention; chi-square, p=0.34). Patients with COVID diagnosis prior to CTPA had higher probability of acute PE. SPC charts demonstrated seasonal variation in utilization (Friedman test, p=0.047).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Implementing a CDS based on validated decision rules was associated with a significant reduction in CTPA utilization. The change was immediate and sustained for 12 months post-intervention.</p>","PeriodicalId":73968,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2024.07.024","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Currently, computed tomographic pulmonary angiogram (CTPA) for evaluating acute pulmonary embolism (PE) in Emergency Departments (EDs) is overused and with low yields. The goal of this study is to assess the impact of an evidence-based clinical decision support (CDS) tool, aimed at optimizing appropriate use of CTPA for evaluating PE.

Methods: The study was performed at EDs in a large healthcare system and included 9 academic and community hospitals. The primary outcome was the percent difference in utilization (number of CTPA performed/number of ED visits) and secondary outcome was yield (percentage of CTPA positive for acute PE), comparing 12 months before (6/1/2021-5/31/2022) vs. 12 months after (6/1/2022-5/31/2023) a system-wide implementation of the CDS. Univariate and multivariable analyses using logistic regression were performed to assess factors associated with diagnosis of acute PE. Statistical process control (SPC) charts were used to assess monthly trends in utilization and yield.

Results: Among 931,677 visits to Emergency Departments, 28,101 CTPAs were performed on 24,675 patients. 14,825 CTPAs were performed among 455,038 visits (3.26%) pre-intervention; 13,276 among 476,639 visits (2.79%) post-intervention, a 14.51% relative decrease in CTPA utilization (chi-square, p<0.001). CTPA yield remained unchanged (1371/14825=9.25% pre- vs. 1184/13276=8.92% post-intervention; chi-square, p=0.34). Patients with COVID diagnosis prior to CTPA had higher probability of acute PE. SPC charts demonstrated seasonal variation in utilization (Friedman test, p=0.047).

Discussion: Implementing a CDS based on validated decision rules was associated with a significant reduction in CTPA utilization. The change was immediate and sustained for 12 months post-intervention.

CT 肺血管造影临床预检概率工具:对急诊科使用率的影响。
目的:目前,急诊科(ED)中用于评估急性肺栓塞(PE)的计算机断层扫描肺血管造影(CTPA)被过度使用,且收效甚微。本研究的目的是评估循证临床决策支持(CDS)工具的影响,旨在优化 CTPA 在评估 PE 时的合理使用:研究在一家大型医疗系统的急诊室进行,包括 9 家学术医院和社区医院。主要结果是使用率(进行 CTPA 的次数/急诊室就诊次数)的百分比差异,次要结果是产量(急性 PE CTPA 阳性的百分比),比较全系统实施 CDS 前 12 个月(6/1/2021-5/31/2022)与实施 CDS 后 12 个月(6/1/2022-5/31/2023)的情况。使用逻辑回归进行单变量和多变量分析,以评估与急性 PE 诊断相关的因素。统计过程控制(SPC)图表用于评估利用率和产量的月度趋势:在 931,677 次急诊就诊中,为 24,675 名患者进行了 28,101 次 CTPA。干预前,455,038 人次中进行了 14,825 次 CTPA(3.26%);干预后,476,639 人次中进行了 13,276 次 CTPA(2.79%),CTPA 使用率相对下降了 14.51%(秩和平方,p 讨论:实施基于验证决策规则的 CDS 可显著减少 CTPA 的使用。这种变化是立竿见影的,并在干预后持续了 12 个月。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信