Posts Tagged ‘imaging’

Why “Doctor Sees Results First” is harmful

December 14th, 2009 | Popularity: 5%
10 comments

Hope Leman, who just did a wonderful job interviewing me on her blog, also asked me about this quote in a previous post:

“Not only do we now have information that this rule (”doctor sees results first”) is probably harmful, we are learning that it’s probably not wanted, from physicians, who are talking to patients.”

She asked me to clarify, which I am happy to do. Below is a graphical image of what two very important studies just showed:

Failure to Notify

Hope’s question:

I don’t see how that would be harmful. Do you mean because he would then be overly persuasive and the patient would be a weaker position info possession wise?

To clarify, I did not mean that it’s harmful for doctors to see test results before their patients. Not at all. I think if a physician seeing a result and then informing the patient in a timely manner is ideal. I also think the patient seeing the result and then having a dialogue with the patient is ideal, too, relative to what is not ideal.

What is not ideal is a significantly abnormal result coming back and the patient not finding out about it, for obvious reasons.

So what I meant was, “a workflow that doesn’t allow a patient to see their test results in a timely manner is harmful.” When a system requires the doctor to see the result before the patient can, there’s a risk that the patient will never get it. When there is failure to notify, there could be failure to treat, which can be devastating.

Beyond this risk, patients and families are not demanding that their doctors see their test results first anyway, so this is just another reason to change the rule “patient doesn’t get to see their test results until the doctor does.”

The key is patient (and family) access to their own results, so they can assist in the accuracy and safety of their care. And they will do it, as I quoted previously, from the Disruptive Women in Health Care blog:

Although we may not think it’s our responsibility to read our operative report or a pathology report… it could mean the difference between a good or bad result in the best case scenario, or life and death in the worst case scenario. In the end, your health information is just that…..yours. No one will care more about it, or own it, in quite the same way as you.

I hope this explanation was better; if not, comment away!

Now Reading: Patients want their radiology test results

November 5th, 2009 | Popularity: 4%
6 comments
Insight From Patients for

Johnson AJ, Easterling D, Williams LS, Glover S, Frankel RM. Insight From Patients for Radiologists: Improving Our Reporting Systems [Internet]. Journal of the American College of Radiology 2009;6(11):786-794.[cited 2009 Nov 5 ] Available from: http://www.jacr.org/article/S1546-1440(09)00360-3/abstract

Actually, the title of this paper is “Insight From Patients for Radiologists: Improving Our Reporting Systems”

I’ve been heard to say that I don’t know where the rule that “the physician must see the test result before the patient” came from. (Once, someone in an audience responded, “From doctors!”) At the same time, there hasn’t been a lot of data that this de-facto rule isn’t what patients want.

That’s changing.

Not only do we now have information that this rule (“doctor sees results first”) is probably harmful, we are learning that it’s probably not wanted, from physicians, who are talking to patients.

This study is useful both because it addresses the latter issue, and because it is published in the radiology literature.

This study is a review of patient focus groups, with patients invited to discuss their experiences after having either normal MRI scans, or abnormal MRI scans. The results showed that patients had different opinions about who on their care team should discuss their imaging test results with them. However, when it came to getting a copy of those results, the patients were much less divided:

Participants were decidedly in favor of having the option to access test results immediately via an online system. Responding to open-ended questions about this option, they offered the following potential benefits: 1) such a system would allow them to better prepare for their next physician visits, especially to make the most efficient use of limited time with their physicians; 2) such a system would facilitate their ed- ucating themselves about their diseases or conditions; 3) it would empower them and give them more of a “partner”-type relationship with their regular doctors for decision making; 4) it would likely decrease the delay in taking the next steps in their care; and 5) it would facilitate their success in seeking social support.

I think people who have been working and practicing in health systems that offer patients access to their health information have known this for a long time – patients given the choice to access their information in real time achieve much greater benefit than those who are subject to delays, arbitrary or not. This published experience helps to confirm it.

As I have written about previously, the issue of sharing written imaging results has been controversial in the medical community. Imaging reports can be difficult to decipher by patients (sometimes, by doctors, too). They can also have a broad array of information and recommendations that need to be applied to the medical experience of a specific patient.

As a result, only a few organizations routinely share written imaging results with their patients. Does your health care provider/organization share your imaging test results with you? How, and in enough detail? If you’re a health care provider, what do you think of this information?


Now Reading: Follow-up of Abnormal Imaging (where’s the patient in the solution?)

October 8th, 2009 | Popularity: 3%
1 comment

On the heels of a recent study demonstrating problems with patients receiving notification of abnormal lab test results, this study offers more insight in the area of diagnostic imaging results. And…the problems are just as concerning. Tip of the blog post, by the way, to Anita Samarth, who tweeted these findings initially to me.

When talking about “imaging results,” we’re referring to things like chest x-rays, CT scans, and MRI scans. These are often ordered to check for the possibility of cancer.

In fact, 11 times, results that were not relayed to patients after 4 weeks were of an abnormality that turned out to be cancer.

The interesting difference between this study and the study referenced previously is that it was done in a setting with a robust electronic health record (EHR) – The Department of Veterans Affairs.

What was studied was whether the (well) functioning EHR resulted in patients learning of abnormal imaging studies, not whether there was a working process to have these results brought to the attention of doctor in the first place.

The results are similar to those seen previously – Of 123,638 outpatient studies, 1,196 results were flagged “critical. 92 of these 1,196 critical notifications, or 7.7 %, did not result in timely notification, defined as 4 weeks. I’d say many patients and their families would not even classify “timely” as 4 weeks.

So the news is not very good with our ability to involve patients and families in their imaging results, either.

One other tidbit that caught my eye related to all of this is that if two doctors were involved in the notification instead of one, there was a greater likelihood of an alert not being acknowledged. That difference disappeared, though, when it came to looking for follow-up in the chart.

The issue of accountability leads me to what impressed me about this paper, and sort of not in a good way. There is no discussion of the potential for patients to assist in timely notification by having access to their imaging results online. This is especially surprising considering that the Department of Veterans Affairs manages a very good patient online access portal, MyHealthEVet.

Was this an oversight (not considering patient access as a solution), was this approach considered but not discussed in the article, or was this approach not considered a good solution at all?

As mentioned in a post on the Disruptive Women in Healthcare blog, it is the patient who will “care more about it or own it” the most when it comes to medical information. This is especially true, I think, when multiple clinicians are involved.

I have discussed the value of providing imaging test results to patients here previously – Several organizations already do this, including Beth Israel Deaconness Medical Center, and Palo Alto Medical Foundation.

Why not have this a standard (patient access), if we now know that in even the most technologically advanced systems, failure of notification can happen, and can potentially be devastating?


The Evidence Gap – The Pain May Be Real, but the Scan Is Deceiving – NYTimes.com

December 17th, 2008 | Popularity: 11%
0 comments | Leave a reply

Now Reading: “What’s the ROI on that scanner you just bought?” – Use of Medical Imaging in the United States

December 1st, 2008 | Popularity: 22%
0 comments | Leave a reply

The quote in the title of this post is the paraphrase of a conversation I have had more than a few times with someone who has asked me, “Ted, what’s the return on investment for web services for patients?” The answer I have usually gotten when I ask the question back is usually no answer.

Two papers just published in HealthAffairs provide a little more background for that conversation. The first is about the growth of the use of imaging technology in the United States. As you might expect, it is growing, and more with every new scanner put in operation.

To put things in better perspective, I created this graph from the data, showing the increase in the number of scans/beneficiary. In 2005, there were 547 CT scans per 1,000 Medicare beneficiary, or about 1 scan per 2 beneficiaries. What the article doesn’t mention is that the radiation load from a CT scan is high, anywhere to 15 – 100 times the dose of radiation from a chest X-ray. Medicare reimburses, on average $308 for a CT scan, $713 for an MRI.

Procedures per 1000 Beneficiaries

A basic return on investment analysis is performed for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) screening, which shows that as more people are screened using CT, less are screened using catheter angiography (which is more invasive). This is good, except, the reduction is less than 1:1, so there is overall expansion of screening to more people, and more procedures to fix AAA associated with this. The problem is that there isn’t data on whether this is overall a good thing or not from a cost/benefit perspective.

Because CT and MRI are a physician preference item, reimbursement and use is typically physician directed, which can create conflict (see Jaime Robinson’s paper in the same Health Affairs issue for more about this).

It’s interesting that the adoption curve of CT/MRI looks a lot like the adoption curve of personal health records in organizations that prioritize them, like Kaiser Permanente and Group Health Cooperative.

Currently, Medicare pays $0.00 per certified empowered/activated patient (potentially defined by more than 2 accesses to a comprehensive personal health record in 6 months).

So we know from this is example that it’s possible for health care to adopt technology. How can we recreate the magic of the CT/MRI adoption curve for something that’s patient directed? I have some ideas but want to see your comments first.


Changing Physician Education; Social Media in the Workplace, Questions about HPV Vaccine

November 20th, 2007 | Popularity: 38%
0 comments | Leave a reply

November 14th through November 17th: