Patient Photograph Association With Radiologist Recommendations for Additional Imaging.

Jeffrey P Guenette, Jungwun Lee, Sebastien Haneuse, Jarvis T Chen, Neena Kapoor, Ronilda Lacson, Ramin Khorasani
{"title":"Patient Photograph Association With Radiologist Recommendations for Additional Imaging.","authors":"Jeffrey P Guenette, Jungwun Lee, Sebastien Haneuse, Jarvis T Chen, Neena Kapoor, Ronilda Lacson, Ramin Khorasani","doi":"10.1016/j.jacr.2024.10.018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Assess whether display of a patient photograph in the electronic health record (EHR) alongside head and neck CT or MRI radiology examinations is associated with recommendations for additional imaging (RAI) and whether self-reported race modifies that association.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This multi-institution health care system retrospective observational study from June 1, 2021 to May 31, 2022 included all patients with a head/neck CT or MRI report. We investigated association of photograph with RAIs using mixed-effects models adjusting for age, sex, complexity score, race, and area deprivation index while conditioning on patient and radiologist. Race was subsequently included as an interaction term. Multiple imputation was used as sensitivity analysis to address missing race data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In all, 60,543 reports were included from 48,143 patients (55.6% female; median age 58 years, interquartile range 40-70). The EHR included a photograph at the time 18.2% (11,048 of 60,543) of reports were signed. RAIs were included in 7.5% (4,522 of 60,543) of reports. Reports signed when a photograph was displayed had lower estimated odds of containing RAIs (odds ratio: 0.85, 95% confidence interval: 0.77-0.93, P < .001), consistent in sensitivity analysis, with no clear interaction between race and photograph (odds ratio: 0.99, 95% confidence interval: 0.69-1.46, P = .97).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Patients with a photograph in the EHR had a lower probability of receiving RAIs and this difference did not seem to be the result of implicit racial bias but may be due to personalization of the encounter. This effect may influence radiology reporting for millions of patients per year. Further research is needed to determine whether the association has a positive or negative impact on care quality and outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":73968,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-12","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.2024.10.018","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: Assess whether display of a patient photograph in the electronic health record (EHR) alongside head and neck CT or MRI radiology examinations is associated with recommendations for additional imaging (RAI) and whether self-reported race modifies that association.

Methods: This multi-institution health care system retrospective observational study from June 1, 2021 to May 31, 2022 included all patients with a head/neck CT or MRI report. We investigated association of photograph with RAIs using mixed-effects models adjusting for age, sex, complexity score, race, and area deprivation index while conditioning on patient and radiologist. Race was subsequently included as an interaction term. Multiple imputation was used as sensitivity analysis to address missing race data.

Results: In all, 60,543 reports were included from 48,143 patients (55.6% female; median age 58 years, interquartile range 40-70). The EHR included a photograph at the time 18.2% (11,048 of 60,543) of reports were signed. RAIs were included in 7.5% (4,522 of 60,543) of reports. Reports signed when a photograph was displayed had lower estimated odds of containing RAIs (odds ratio: 0.85, 95% confidence interval: 0.77-0.93, P < .001), consistent in sensitivity analysis, with no clear interaction between race and photograph (odds ratio: 0.99, 95% confidence interval: 0.69-1.46, P = .97).

Discussion: Patients with a photograph in the EHR had a lower probability of receiving RAIs and this difference did not seem to be the result of implicit racial bias but may be due to personalization of the encounter. This effect may influence radiology reporting for millions of patients per year. Further research is needed to determine whether the association has a positive or negative impact on care quality and outcomes.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
患者照片与放射科医生建议进行额外成像的关联。
目的:评估在头颈部 CT 或 MRI 放射检查的同时在电子健康记录(EHR)中显示患者照片是否与额外成像(RAI)建议有关,以及自我报告的种族是否会改变这种关联:这项多机构医疗系统回顾性观察研究的研究时间为 2021 年 1 月 6 日至 2022 年 5 月 31 日,研究对象包括所有出具头颈部 CT 或 MRI 报告的患者。我们使用混合效应模型研究了照片与 RAI 的相关性,该模型调整了年龄、性别、复杂性评分、种族和地区贫困指数,同时对患者和放射科医生进行了调节。种族随后被列为交互项。多重估算作为敏感性分析用于解决种族数据缺失的问题:共纳入 48,143 名患者(55.6% 为女性;中位年龄 58 岁,IQR 40-70)的 60,543 份报告。18.2%(11,048/60,543)的报告签署时电子病历包含照片。7.5%(4522/60543)的报告包含 RAI。显示照片时签署的报告含有 RAI 的估计几率较低(OR:0.85,95%CI:0.77-0.93,p 讨论:电子病历中有照片的患者接受 RAI 的几率较低,这种差异似乎不是隐性种族偏见造成的,而可能是由于就诊的个性化。这种效应可能会影响每年数百万患者的放射报告。还需要进一步的研究来确定这种关联对医疗质量和治疗效果的影响是积极的还是消极的。
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 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Patient-Friendly Summary of the ACR Appropriateness Criteria®: Radiologic Management of Urinary Tract Obstruction. AI in the Era of GPT: Transforming the Future of Work and Discovery. Figure: Trends in proportion of part-time academic radiology faculty by gender and rank. Identity Matters: The Potential for a Frictionless and Secure Patient Experience. Matching the Message to the Audience - Understanding What Your Customer Needs to Hear.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1