Whitney Palmer

Healthcare. Politics. Family.

No Such Thing as Big Data in Health Care

Published on the Dec. 3, 2014, DiagnosticImaging.com website

When it comes to big data, health care doesn’t really have any. And, for radiology, that’s a good thing. Small and medium data will work just fine – especially for testing and designing new reimbursement models, according to speakers at this year’s Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) meeting.

Industry experts at this year’s RSNA say the data hospitals and health care systems already have can help providers identify ways to maximize their influence in the design of any future payment models.

“We’re currently in the lowest life form of payment policy. We get paid for events – it’s a transactional delivery system,” said Richard Duszak, MD, vice chair for health policy and practice, department of radiology and imaging sciences, Emory University School of Medicine. “Increasingly, we’re moving to models where we’ll be paid by encounters and engagements.”

The question, he said, is how those models will be designed to ensure radiologists receive appropriate reimbursement for services rendered in a correctly incentivized way. To date, there’s no clear-cut answer, but there are steps radiologists can take – armed with small-to-medium data – to ensure their seat at the decision table.

To read the article in its entirey at its original location: http://www.diagnosticimaging.com/rsna-2014/no-such-thing-big-data-health-care

Advertisements

January 1, 2015 Posted by | Healthcare | , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Clinical Decision Support in Radiology: Its Time Is Now

Published on the Dec. 27, 2012 Diagnostic Imaging website

By Whitney L.J. Howell

There’s been a great deal of discussion in recent years about using clinical decision support (CDS) systems to ensure that imaging studies ordered and performed are appropriate. But the use of such systems in radiology isn’t a new idea. For the past decade providers and policymakers have discussed the proper use and implementation of CDS programs.

In the December issue of the Journal of the American College of Radiology, Hanna Zafar, MD,

Hanna Zafar, MD, assistant professor radiology at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania

Hanna Zafar, MD, assistant professor radiology at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania

assistant professor radiology at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, discussed the history, benefits, and challenges associated with CDS systems in radiology. Diagnostic Imaging spoke with her about this paper.

Why did you decide to take a look at all the legislation that includes or impacts clinical decision support?

We were trying to convey that the policies regarding clinical decision support addressed in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) did not appear overnight but were built on a long legislative history. Since 2003 policymakers have been interested in the use of CDS both for health care in general, as well as public reporting and radiology through the use of financial incentives and penalties. ARRA builds on the foundation established by this prior legislation in order to try and improve the quality, deliver and reporting of imaging procedures.

What are the major benefits of using CDS? What is the impact?

It’s important to understand that the implementation of CDS in imaging is part of a continued pattern to improve the quality, delivery and reporting of imaging procedures. Imaging CDS was not created to penalize radiologists or target imaging negatively. It is also important to remember that CDS is only applicable to those situations where evidence based guidelines exist.

CDS provides several benefits to clinicians, radiologists and patients. The chief benefit to clinicians is that it educates providers on evidence-based guidelines relating to imaging at the time of image order entry. That last phrase is critical because although many excellent guidelines exist, it’s not feasible for clinicians to refer to those guidelines at the time of ordering an imaging examination. The fact that these guidelines can be distilled into key clinical questions allows the system to interact with and give feedback to the provider in a seamless manner. Imaging CDS can also reduce inappropriate or redundant studies by providing alternative imaging procedures that are better suited to answer a clinical question per evidence-based guidelines or by highlighting the results of prior, potentially relevant, imaging procedures to help reduce redundant testing.

CDS also provides several benefits to radiologists. On a concrete level, it requires the input of relevant and pertinent pieces of clinical history into the physician order entry at the time of the clinical study order. If available to radiologists at the time of study interpretation, this clinical information can be extremely helpful in how we evaluate and interpret reports.

Specifically, this clinical data can help us to better understand why a clinician is ordering a study and to ensure that our report answers the critical clinical question for the provider and the patient. Reduction of inappropriate and redundant testing is also beneficial to radiologists in that it allows us to focus on appropriate imaging procedures. Radiologists, similar to other specialties, want to improve patient care through the optimal use of diagnostic imaging and of health care resources.

Finally, from the patient perspective, imaging CDS can improve patient safety through avoidance of unnecessary radiation from inappropriate or redundant procedures and the effect of unnecessary downstream procedures, such as the management of incidental findings.

On a more global note, imaging CDS offers a very exciting and novel opportunity to tie utilization of evidence-based imaging guidelines with patient outcomes. Imaging-related outcomes have long been a grey zone for radiologists because we don’t order imaging procedures, and we often don’t have easy or reliable access to relevant clinical history. Access to outcomes data will be valuable for us as radiologists, and it will be increasingly important for future policy and legislative decisions.

Are there challenges to implementing a clinical decision support system on a large scale?

The success of imaging CDS in reducing inappropriate imaging procedures thus far has been demonstrated in single institutional or health system studies and within a handful of states. We are optimistic that these results can be replicated on a larger national scale. However, this remains to be seen. An important point to remember is that even though there are no guarantees that imaging CDS utilization will translate necessarily or easily into improved quality and outcomes, it will bring us closer to understanding the relationship between guidelines and patient outcomes. This knowledge will allow us to begin to improve imaging utilization.

As for challenges in imaging CDS implementation, there are several that we can anticipate and others that we will likely have to address as they come. One of the main anticipated challenges is that imaging CDS relies on the existence of high quality guidelines. To date, imaging CDS has focused on clinical areas involving such guidelines as the use of lumbar spine MRI for lower back pain or CT pulmonary angiography for suspected pulmonary embolism. However, there are many imaging procedures that involve clinical scenarios for which we don’t have high quality guidelines. This will be an obstacle.

Another challenge for imaging CDS is variability in practice patterns among geographic regions, specialties and even individual providers. For some clinicians, imaging CDS is perceived as “cookie-cutter medicine” or a waste of time. There will always be some degree of resistance to any change in medicine, but nothing powerful enough to deter the need to explore the potential of imaging CDS to improve the deliver of radiology procedures.

To read the remainder of the Q&A at its original location: http://www.diagnosticimaging.com/informatics-pacs/content/article/113619/2121063?pageNumber=1

January 2, 2013 Posted by | Healthcare | , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

MRI for Breast Cancer Screening? Depends on Your Patient

Published on the Nov. 15, 2011, DiagnosticImaging.com website

By Whitney L.J. Howell

Mammography versus magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has been a long-standing debate among industry leaders. The general consensus today, however, is while both tests effectively detect breast cancer and can work hand-in-hand, mammography is still indispensable.

According to the American Cancer Society, each year brings 1.3 million new breast cancer diagnoses, and catching these incidents early is critical to saving lives. While mammography has sliced the associated death rate by 30 percent since 1990, 465,000 women still die each year.

But breast imaging isn’t about choosing one scan over another, said Mitchell Schnall, MD, a Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania radiologist. Instead, you should focus on using both techniques correctly to identify cancers earlier when they’re smaller and potentially more treatable.

“We shouldn’t talk about MRI or mammography — they’re different modalities with different roles,” Schnall said. “Mammography is for general patient screening, and we use MRI to screen our high-risk patients. Their roles are complementary. The discussion should never be which one do we do.”

And the screenings aren’t interchangeable, experts said.

“Mammography is the backbone of how we diagnose breast cancer,” said David Dershaw, MD, a radiologist with Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. “There are situations where MRI can add information we can’t get from mammography, but it can’t be a replacement.”

To read the remainder of the article (and the pros and cons of MRI and mammography): http://www.diagnosticimaging.com/womens-imaging/content/article/113619/1991558

November 15, 2011 Posted by | Healthcare | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

   

%d bloggers like this: