Appropriate use criteria for stress single-photon emission computed tomography sestamibi studies: A quality improvement project

Raymond J Gibbons, J. Wells Askew, David Hodge, Beth Kaping, Damita J. Carryer, Todd Miller

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

64 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background-We previously reported the application of the 2005 American College of Cardiology Foundation appropriate use criteria for stress single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) imaging to patients at Mayo Clinic (Rochester, MN) in 2005 and 2006. A subsequent internal quality improvement project focused on physician education in an attempt to reduce the rate of inappropriate SPECT studies. Methods and Results-Our 2008 physician education effort, focused on 4 specific indications that accounted for 88% of the inappropriate SPECT studies, included a presentation at medical grand rounds, a publication in the staff newsletter, meetings with physician administrators, and focused presentations to departments/divisions with many ordering physicians. We then remeasured the appropriateness of SPECT studies using previously published methods.The general categories of study indications, eg, after revascularization, were similar in 273 SPECT patients in 2008 and in our 2005 (n=284) and 2006 (n=284) cohorts. There was a trend suggesting a change in the overall classification of appropriateness over time (P=0.08) and a significant change in the rate of inappropriate studies over time (P=0.018). Inappropriate studies decreased from 14.4% in 2005 to 7.0% in 2006 before initiation of the quality improvement project. After completion of the quality improvement project, inappropriate studies increased to 11.7% (P=0.06). The 95% confidence limits for the 4.7% increase in inappropriate studies after the quality improvement project included a decrease of 0.2% and an increase of 9.6%. Conclusions-This quality improvement project, focused on feedback, physician education, and remeasurement, did not reduce the rate of inappropriate stress SPECT studies in a single academic medical center. Similar limited interventions focused on physician education alone may have limited benefit. More extensive intervention may be necessary to improve the quality of care with appropriateness criteria.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)499-503
Number of pages5
JournalCirculation
Volume123
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 8 2011

Fingerprint

Quality Improvement
Single-Photon Emission-Computed Tomography
Physicians
Education
Teaching Rounds
Quality of Health Care
Administrative Personnel
Publications

Keywords

  • coronary artery disease
  • imaging
  • radioisotopes

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Physiology (medical)
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Appropriate use criteria for stress single-photon emission computed tomography sestamibi studies : A quality improvement project. / Gibbons, Raymond J; Askew, J. Wells; Hodge, David; Kaping, Beth; Carryer, Damita J.; Miller, Todd.

In: Circulation, Vol. 123, No. 5, 08.02.2011, p. 499-503.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Gibbons, Raymond J ; Askew, J. Wells ; Hodge, David ; Kaping, Beth ; Carryer, Damita J. ; Miller, Todd. / Appropriate use criteria for stress single-photon emission computed tomography sestamibi studies : A quality improvement project. In: Circulation. 2011 ; Vol. 123, No. 5. pp. 499-503.
@article{1de8effda29540bc929fd9e2e37700d0,
title = "Appropriate use criteria for stress single-photon emission computed tomography sestamibi studies: A quality improvement project",
abstract = "Background-We previously reported the application of the 2005 American College of Cardiology Foundation appropriate use criteria for stress single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) imaging to patients at Mayo Clinic (Rochester, MN) in 2005 and 2006. A subsequent internal quality improvement project focused on physician education in an attempt to reduce the rate of inappropriate SPECT studies. Methods and Results-Our 2008 physician education effort, focused on 4 specific indications that accounted for 88{\%} of the inappropriate SPECT studies, included a presentation at medical grand rounds, a publication in the staff newsletter, meetings with physician administrators, and focused presentations to departments/divisions with many ordering physicians. We then remeasured the appropriateness of SPECT studies using previously published methods.The general categories of study indications, eg, after revascularization, were similar in 273 SPECT patients in 2008 and in our 2005 (n=284) and 2006 (n=284) cohorts. There was a trend suggesting a change in the overall classification of appropriateness over time (P=0.08) and a significant change in the rate of inappropriate studies over time (P=0.018). Inappropriate studies decreased from 14.4{\%} in 2005 to 7.0{\%} in 2006 before initiation of the quality improvement project. After completion of the quality improvement project, inappropriate studies increased to 11.7{\%} (P=0.06). The 95{\%} confidence limits for the 4.7{\%} increase in inappropriate studies after the quality improvement project included a decrease of 0.2{\%} and an increase of 9.6{\%}. Conclusions-This quality improvement project, focused on feedback, physician education, and remeasurement, did not reduce the rate of inappropriate stress SPECT studies in a single academic medical center. Similar limited interventions focused on physician education alone may have limited benefit. More extensive intervention may be necessary to improve the quality of care with appropriateness criteria.",
keywords = "coronary artery disease, imaging, radioisotopes",
author = "Gibbons, {Raymond J} and Askew, {J. Wells} and David Hodge and Beth Kaping and Carryer, {Damita J.} and Todd Miller",
year = "2011",
month = "2",
day = "8",
doi = "10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.110.975995",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "123",
pages = "499--503",
journal = "Circulation",
issn = "0009-7322",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Appropriate use criteria for stress single-photon emission computed tomography sestamibi studies

T2 - A quality improvement project

AU - Gibbons, Raymond J

AU - Askew, J. Wells

AU - Hodge, David

AU - Kaping, Beth

AU - Carryer, Damita J.

AU - Miller, Todd

PY - 2011/2/8

Y1 - 2011/2/8

N2 - Background-We previously reported the application of the 2005 American College of Cardiology Foundation appropriate use criteria for stress single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) imaging to patients at Mayo Clinic (Rochester, MN) in 2005 and 2006. A subsequent internal quality improvement project focused on physician education in an attempt to reduce the rate of inappropriate SPECT studies. Methods and Results-Our 2008 physician education effort, focused on 4 specific indications that accounted for 88% of the inappropriate SPECT studies, included a presentation at medical grand rounds, a publication in the staff newsletter, meetings with physician administrators, and focused presentations to departments/divisions with many ordering physicians. We then remeasured the appropriateness of SPECT studies using previously published methods.The general categories of study indications, eg, after revascularization, were similar in 273 SPECT patients in 2008 and in our 2005 (n=284) and 2006 (n=284) cohorts. There was a trend suggesting a change in the overall classification of appropriateness over time (P=0.08) and a significant change in the rate of inappropriate studies over time (P=0.018). Inappropriate studies decreased from 14.4% in 2005 to 7.0% in 2006 before initiation of the quality improvement project. After completion of the quality improvement project, inappropriate studies increased to 11.7% (P=0.06). The 95% confidence limits for the 4.7% increase in inappropriate studies after the quality improvement project included a decrease of 0.2% and an increase of 9.6%. Conclusions-This quality improvement project, focused on feedback, physician education, and remeasurement, did not reduce the rate of inappropriate stress SPECT studies in a single academic medical center. Similar limited interventions focused on physician education alone may have limited benefit. More extensive intervention may be necessary to improve the quality of care with appropriateness criteria.

AB - Background-We previously reported the application of the 2005 American College of Cardiology Foundation appropriate use criteria for stress single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) imaging to patients at Mayo Clinic (Rochester, MN) in 2005 and 2006. A subsequent internal quality improvement project focused on physician education in an attempt to reduce the rate of inappropriate SPECT studies. Methods and Results-Our 2008 physician education effort, focused on 4 specific indications that accounted for 88% of the inappropriate SPECT studies, included a presentation at medical grand rounds, a publication in the staff newsletter, meetings with physician administrators, and focused presentations to departments/divisions with many ordering physicians. We then remeasured the appropriateness of SPECT studies using previously published methods.The general categories of study indications, eg, after revascularization, were similar in 273 SPECT patients in 2008 and in our 2005 (n=284) and 2006 (n=284) cohorts. There was a trend suggesting a change in the overall classification of appropriateness over time (P=0.08) and a significant change in the rate of inappropriate studies over time (P=0.018). Inappropriate studies decreased from 14.4% in 2005 to 7.0% in 2006 before initiation of the quality improvement project. After completion of the quality improvement project, inappropriate studies increased to 11.7% (P=0.06). The 95% confidence limits for the 4.7% increase in inappropriate studies after the quality improvement project included a decrease of 0.2% and an increase of 9.6%. Conclusions-This quality improvement project, focused on feedback, physician education, and remeasurement, did not reduce the rate of inappropriate stress SPECT studies in a single academic medical center. Similar limited interventions focused on physician education alone may have limited benefit. More extensive intervention may be necessary to improve the quality of care with appropriateness criteria.

KW - coronary artery disease

KW - imaging

KW - radioisotopes

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79951670176&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79951670176&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.110.975995

DO - 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.110.975995

M3 - Article

C2 - 21262995

AN - SCOPUS:79951670176

VL - 123

SP - 499

EP - 503

JO - Circulation

JF - Circulation

SN - 0009-7322

IS - 5

ER -