Evaluation of a Clinical Decision Support System for Imaging Requests

JAMA Pub Date : 2025-02-10 DOI:10.1001/jama.2024.27853
Stijntje W. Dijk, Claudia Wollny, Joerg Barkhausen, Olav Jansen, Peter Mildenberger, Moritz C. Halfmann, Jonas Stroeder, Dimitris Rizopoulos, M. G. Myriam Hunink, Thomas Kroencke
{"title":"Evaluation of a Clinical Decision Support System for Imaging Requests","authors":"Stijntje W. Dijk, Claudia Wollny, Joerg Barkhausen, Olav Jansen, Peter Mildenberger, Moritz C. Halfmann, Jonas Stroeder, Dimitris Rizopoulos, M. G. Myriam Hunink, Thomas Kroencke","doi":"10.1001/jama.2024.27853","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ImportanceGiven the widespread use of medical imaging, evaluating the effectiveness of interventions to improve appropriateness is crucial for optimizing health care resources and patient outcomes.ObjectiveTo assess the effects of implementing a clinical decision support system (CDSS), the European Society of Radiology iGuide, on the appropriateness of the medical imaging ordering behavior of physicians.Design and SettingA cluster randomized clinical trial with 26 departments at 3 German university hospitals acting as clusters, incorporating a before and after discontinued design. All imaging requests originating from physicians in the participating departments over a 2.5-year period were included (between December 2021 and June 2024).InterventionsAll departments started without a CDSS and required structured clinical indication data entry and tracking of requested imaging. After randomization, 13 clusters (departments at hospitals) received the CDSS intervention (intervention clusters) and 13 clusters did not (control clusters). The CDSS intervention provided ordering physicians with information as to whether their imaging requests were appropriate, appropriate under certain conditions, or inappropriate; in addition, alternative diagnostic tests, including the corresponding appropriateness score, were suggested by the CDSS, after which physicians could choose to modify their imaging requests.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome measure was the proportion of inappropriate imaging requests made per department. A difference-in-differences analysis was used to investigate changes in the proportion of inappropriate imaging requests between departments with vs those without the CDSS.ResultsA total of 65 764 imaging requests were scored using the CDSS; 50.1% of imaging requests were for female patients and the mean patient age was 64 years (SD, 17.1 years). Prior to implementation of the CDSS, there were 21 625 imaging requests from the control clusters, 1367 (6.3%) of which were categorized as inappropriate; and there were 13 338 imaging requests from the intervention clusters, 1007 (7.6%) of which were categorized as inappropriate. After implementation of the CDSS, there were 10 055 imaging requests from the control clusters, 518 (5.2%) of which were categorized as inappropriate; and there were 7206 imaging requests from the intervention clusters, 461 (6.4%) of which were categorized as inappropriate. The intervention clusters showed a similar reduction (mean difference, −0.5% [99% CI, −2.4% to 0.4%]) in inappropriate imaging requests compared with the control clusters (mean difference, −1.8% [99% CI, −4.3% to −0.4%]) and there was a difference-in-differences value of 1.3 percentage points (99% CI, −2.0 to 1.8 percentage points; <jats:italic>P</jats:italic> = .69), which was not statistically significant.Conclusions and RelevanceThe CDSS did not reduce the number of inappropriate imaging requests ordered by physicians in academic hospital settings.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: <jats:ext-link xmlns:xlink=\"http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink\" ext-link-type=\"uri\" xlink:href=\"https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05490290?id=NCT05490290&amp;amp;amp;rank=1\">NCT05490290</jats:ext-link>","PeriodicalId":518009,"journal":{"name":"JAMA","volume":"12 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAMA","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2024.27853","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

ImportanceGiven the widespread use of medical imaging, evaluating the effectiveness of interventions to improve appropriateness is crucial for optimizing health care resources and patient outcomes.ObjectiveTo assess the effects of implementing a clinical decision support system (CDSS), the European Society of Radiology iGuide, on the appropriateness of the medical imaging ordering behavior of physicians.Design and SettingA cluster randomized clinical trial with 26 departments at 3 German university hospitals acting as clusters, incorporating a before and after discontinued design. All imaging requests originating from physicians in the participating departments over a 2.5-year period were included (between December 2021 and June 2024).InterventionsAll departments started without a CDSS and required structured clinical indication data entry and tracking of requested imaging. After randomization, 13 clusters (departments at hospitals) received the CDSS intervention (intervention clusters) and 13 clusters did not (control clusters). The CDSS intervention provided ordering physicians with information as to whether their imaging requests were appropriate, appropriate under certain conditions, or inappropriate; in addition, alternative diagnostic tests, including the corresponding appropriateness score, were suggested by the CDSS, after which physicians could choose to modify their imaging requests.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome measure was the proportion of inappropriate imaging requests made per department. A difference-in-differences analysis was used to investigate changes in the proportion of inappropriate imaging requests between departments with vs those without the CDSS.ResultsA total of 65 764 imaging requests were scored using the CDSS; 50.1% of imaging requests were for female patients and the mean patient age was 64 years (SD, 17.1 years). Prior to implementation of the CDSS, there were 21 625 imaging requests from the control clusters, 1367 (6.3%) of which were categorized as inappropriate; and there were 13 338 imaging requests from the intervention clusters, 1007 (7.6%) of which were categorized as inappropriate. After implementation of the CDSS, there were 10 055 imaging requests from the control clusters, 518 (5.2%) of which were categorized as inappropriate; and there were 7206 imaging requests from the intervention clusters, 461 (6.4%) of which were categorized as inappropriate. The intervention clusters showed a similar reduction (mean difference, −0.5% [99% CI, −2.4% to 0.4%]) in inappropriate imaging requests compared with the control clusters (mean difference, −1.8% [99% CI, −4.3% to −0.4%]) and there was a difference-in-differences value of 1.3 percentage points (99% CI, −2.0 to 1.8 percentage points; P = .69), which was not statistically significant.Conclusions and RelevanceThe CDSS did not reduce the number of inappropriate imaging requests ordered by physicians in academic hospital settings.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05490290
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
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
Race and Ethnicity in Biomedical Research Evaluation of a Clinical Decision Support System for Imaging Requests Obecabtagene Autoleucel for B-Cell Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia Contemporary Hormonal Contraception and Risk of Venous Thromboembolism Launching the Trustworthy and Responsible AI Network (TRAIN)
×
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