H. Benjamin Harvey

ACR Appropriateness Criteria Low Back Pain.

Most patients presenting with uncomplicated acute low back pain (LBP) and/or radiculopathy do not require imaging. Imaging is considered in those patients who have had up to 6 weeks of medical management and physical therapy that resulted in little or no improvement in their back pain. It is also considered for those patients presenting with red flags raising suspicion for serious underlying conditions, such as cauda equina syndrome, malignancy, fracture, and infection. Many imaging modalities are available to clinicians and radiologists for evaluating LBP. Application of these modalities depends largely on the working diagnosis, the urgency of the clinical problem, and comorbidities of the patient. When there is concern for fracture of the lumbar spine, multidetector CT is recommended. Those deemed to be interventional candidates, with LBP lasting for > 6 weeks having completed conservative management with persistent radiculopathic symptoms, may seek MRI. Patients with severe or progressive neurologic deficit on presentation and red flags should be evaluated with MRI. The ACR Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances in which evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

Falling Prey to the Sunk Cost Bias: A Potential Harm of Patient Radiation Dose Histories

Although patient dose histories will make valuable contributions to quality improvement and research initiatives, care must be taken to avoid misuse by physicians when making imaging decisions for individual patients.

Informed Consent for Radiation Risk from CT Is Unjustified Based on the Current Scientific Evidence.

We contend that informed consent is unjustified based on an objective look at the currently available scientific evidence.

Accountable Care Organizations: what they mean for the country and for neurointerventionalists

The Affordable Care Act is celebrating its fifth anniversary and remains one of the most significant attempts to reform healthcare in US history. Prior to the federal legislation, Accountable Care Organizations had largely been part of an academic discussion about how to control rising healthcare costs, but have since become a fixture in our national healthcare landscape. A fundamental shift is underway in the relationship between healthcare delivery and payment models. Some elements of Accountable Care Organizations may remain unfamiliar to most healthcare providers, including neurointerventional specialists. In this paper we review the fundamental concepts behind and the current forms of Accountable Care Organizations, and discuss the challenges and opportunities they present for neurointerventionalists.

Consensus-oriented group peer review: a new process to review radiologist work output.

The Joint Commission and other regulatory bodies have mandated that health care organizations implement processes for ongoing physician performance review. Software solutions, such as RADPEER™, have been created to meet this need efficiently. However, the authors believe that available systems are not optimally designed to produce changes in practice and overlook many important aspects of quality by excessive focus on diagnosis. The authors present a new model of peer review known as consensus-oriented group review, which is based on group discussion of cases in a conference setting and places greater emphasis on feedback than traditional systems of radiology peer review. By focusing on the process of peer review, consensus-oriented group review is intended to optimize performance improvement and foster group standards of practice. The authors also describe the software tool developed to implement this process of enriched peer review.

Rethinking Normal: Benefits and Risks of Not Reporting Harmless Incidental Findings

The authors explore the benefits and risks of not reporting imaging findings that do not have clinical relevance, with the goal of developing recommendations to reduce their reporting. The authors review the example of incidentally detected, simple renal cysts (Bosniak category I), including medicolegal conditions required for such a shift in reporting practices to be acceptable. The authors propose four potential criteria for not reporting clinically unimportant findings and recommend that these criteria be debated in other contexts, so that they can be refined and implemented.

Radiologist Peer Review by Group Consensus

PURPOSE The objective of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of the consensus-oriented group review (COGR) method of radiologist peer review within a large subspecialty imaging department. METHODS This study was institutional review board approved and HIPAA compliant. Radiologist interpretations of CT, MRI, and ultrasound examinations at a large academic radiology department were subject to peer review using the COGR method from October 2011 through September 2013. Discordance rates and sources of discordance were evaluated on the basis of modality and division, with group differences compared using a χ(2) test. Potential associations between peer review outcomes and the time after the initiation of peer review or the number of radiologists participating in peer review were tested by linear regression analysis and the t test, respectively. RESULTS A total of 11,222 studies reported by 83 radiologists were peer reviewed using COGR during the two-year study period. The average radiologist participated in 112 peer review conferences and had 3.3% of his or her available CT, MRI and ultrasound studies peer reviewed. The rate of discordance was 2.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.4%-3.0%), with significant differences in discordance rates on the basis of division and modality. Discordance rates were highest for MR (3.4%; 95% CI, 2.8%-4.1%), followed by ultrasound (2.7%; 95% CI, 2.0%-3.4%) and CT (2.4%; 95% CI, 2.0%-2.8%). Missed findings were the most common overall cause for discordance (43.8%; 95% CI, 38.2%-49.4%), followed by interpretive errors (23.5%; 95% CI, 18.8%-28.3%), dictation errors (19.0%; 95% CI, 14.6%-23.4%), and recommendation (10.8%; 95% CI, 7.3%-14.3%). Discordant cases, compared with concordant cases, were associated with a significantly greater number of radiologists participating in the peer review process (5.9 vs 4.7 participating radiologists, P < .001) and were significantly more likely to lead to an addendum (62.9% vs 2.7%, P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS COGR permits departments to collect highly contextualized peer review data to better elucidate sources of error in diagnostic imaging reports, while reviewing a sufficient case volume to comply with external standards for ongoing performance review.

Journal club: How radiation exposure histories influence physician imaging decisions: a multicenter radiologist survey study.

Purpose To evaluate the influence of patient-level radiation exposure histories on radiologists’ imaging decisions.

Non-Research-Related Physician-Industry Relationships of Radiologists in the United States

PURPOSE To evaluate non-research-related, physician-industry financial relationships in the United States, in 2013, as reported pursuant to the Physician Payments Sunshine Act (a provision of the Affordable Care Act). METHODS In September 2014, CMS released the first five months (August 2013 to December 2013) of data disclosing physician-industry financial relationships. The frequency and value of non-research-related transfers in radiology were calculated and compared with those for 19 other specialties. Subanalyses of the frequency and value of such transfers in radiology were performed, based on state of licensure, radiologic subspecialty, nature of payment, manufacturer identity, and drug or device involved. RESULTS A total of 7.4% (2,654 of 35,768) of radiologists from the United States had reportable non-research-related financial relationship(s) with industry during the 5-month period, the second-lowest level among the medical specialties evaluated. The average value of non-research-related transfers of value to radiologists, excluding royalties and licenses, was low (

Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing in IR

438.71; SD: