Citations

AbstractPatient‐centered emergency diagnostic imaging relies on efficient communication and multispecialty care coordination to ensure optimal imaging utilization. The construct of the emergency diagnostic imaging care coordination cycle with three main phases (pretest, test, and posttest) provides a useful framework to evaluate care coordination in patient‐centered emergency diagnostic imaging. This article summarizes findings reached during the patient‐centered outcomes session of the 2015 Academic Emergency Medicine consensus conference “Diagnostic Imaging in the Emergency Department: A Research Agenda to Optimize Utilization.” The primary objective was to develop a research agenda focused on 1) defining component parts of the emergency diagnostic imaging care coordination process, 2) identifying gaps in communication that affect emergency diagnostic imaging, and 3) defining optimal methods of communication and multidisciplinary care coordination that ensure patient‐centered emergency diagnostic imaging. Prioritized research questions provided the framework to define a research agenda for multidisciplinary care coordination in emergency diagnostic imaging.

AbstractObjectivesThe objectives were to describe lawsuits against providers for failing to order head computed tomography (CT) in cases of head trauma and to determine the potential effects of available clinical decision rules (CDRs) on each lawsuit.MethodsThe authors collected jury verdicts, settlements, and court opinions regarding alleged malpractice for failure to order head CT in the setting of head trauma from 1972 through February 2014 from an online legal research tool (WestlawNext). Data were abstracted onto a standardized data form. The performance of five CDRs was evaluated.ResultsSixty relevant cases were identified (52 adult, eight children). Of 48 cases with known outcomes, providers were found negligent in 10 cases (six adult, four pediatric), settled in 11 cases (nine adult, two pediatric), and were found not liable in 27 cases. In all 10 cases in which providers were found negligent, every applicable CDR studied would have indicated the need for head CT. In all eight cases involving children, the applicable CDR would have suggested the need for head CT or observation.ConclusionsA review of legal cases reported in a major online legal research system revealed 60 lawsuits in which providers were sued for failing to order head CTs in cases of head trauma. In all cases in which providers were found negligent, CT imaging or observation would have been indicated by every applicable CDR.

AbstractDiagnostic imaging is integral to the evaluation of many emergency department (ED) patients. However, relatively little effort has been devoted to patient‐centered outcomes research (PCOR) in emergency diagnostic imaging. This article provides background on this topic and the conclusions of the 2015 Academic Emergency Medicine consensus conference PCOR work group regarding “Diagnostic Imaging in the Emergency Department: A Research Agenda to Optimize Utilization.” The goal was to determine a prioritized research agenda to establish which outcomes related to emergency diagnostic imaging are most important to patients, caregivers, and other key stakeholders and which methods will most optimally engage patients in the decision to undergo imaging. Case vignettes are used to emphasize these concepts as they relate to a patient's decision to seek care at an ED and the care received there. The authors discuss applicable research methods and approaches such as shared decision‐making that could facilitate better integration of patient‐centered outcomes and patient‐reported outcomes into decisions regarding emergency diagnostic imaging. Finally, based on a modified Delphi process involving members of the PCOR work group, prioritized research questions are proposed to advance the science of patient‐centered outcomes in ED diagnostic imaging.

AbstractBackgroundOveruse of computed tomography (CT) for minor head injury continues despite developed and rigorously validated clinical decision rules like the Canadian CT Head Rule (CCHR). Adherence to this sensitive and specific rule could decrease the number of CT scans performed in minor head injury by 35%. But in practice, the CCHR has failed to reduce testing, despite its accurate performance.ObjectivesThe objective was to identify nonclinical, human factors that promote or inhibit the appropriate use of CT in patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with minor head injury.MethodsThis was a qualitative study in three phases, each with interview guides developed by a multidisciplinary team. Subjects were recruited from patients treated and released with minor head injuries and providers in an urban academic ED and a satellite community ED. Focus groups of patients (four groups, 22 subjects total) and providers (three groups, 22 subjects total) were conducted until thematic saturation was reached. The findings from the focus groups were triangulated with a cognitive task analysis, including direct observation in the ED (>150 hours), and individual semistructured interviews using the critical decision method with four senior physician subject matter experts. These experts are recognized by their peers for their skill in safely minimizing testing while maintaining patient safety and engagement. Focus groups and interviews were audio recorded and notes were taken by two independent note takers. Notes were entered into ATLAS.ti and analyzed using the constant comparative method of grounded theory, an iterative coding process to determine themes. Data were double‐coded and examined for discrepancies to establish consensus.ResultsFive core domains emerged from the analysis: establishing trust, anxiety (patient and provider), constraints related to ED practice, the influence of others, and patient expectations. Key themes within these domains included patient engagement, provider confidence and experience, ability to identify and manage patient anxiety, time constraints, concussion knowledge gap, influence of health care providers, and patient expectations to get a CT.ConclusionsDespite high‐quality evidence informing use of CT in minor head injury, multiple factors influence the decision to obtain CT in practice. Identifying and disseminating approaches and designing systems that help clinicians establish trust and manage uncertainty within the ED context could optimize CT use in minor head injury.

Background: Thyroid nodules are a common clinical problem, and differentiated thyroid cancer is becoming increasingly prevalent. Since the American Thyroid Association's (ATA's) guidelines for the management of these disorders were revised in 2009, significant scientific advances have occurred in the field. The aim of these guidelines is to inform clinicians, patients, researchers, and health policy makers on published evidence relating to the diagnosis and management of thyroid nodules and differentiated thyroid cancer. Methods: The specific clinical questions addressed in these guidelines were based on prior versions of the guidelines, stakeholder input, and input of task force members. Task force panel members were educated on knowledge synthesis methods, including electronic database searching, review and selection of relevant citations, and critical appraisal of selected studies. Published English language articles on adults were eligible for inclusion. The American College of Physicians Guideline Grading System was used for critical appraisal of evidence and grading strength of recommendations for therapeutic interventions. We developed a similarly formatted system to appraise the quality of such studies and resultant recommendations. The guideline panel had complete editorial independence from the ATA. Competing interests of guideline task force members were regularly updated, managed, and communicated to the ATA and task force members. Results: The revised guidelines for the management of thyroid nodules include recommendations regarding initial evaluation, clinical and ultrasound criteria for fine-needle aspiration biopsy, interpretation of fine-needle aspiration biopsy results, use of molecular markers, and management of benign thyroid nodules. Recommendations regarding the initial management of thyroid cancer include those relating to screening for thyroid cancer, staging and risk assessment, surgical management, radioiodine remnant ablation and therapy, and thyrotropin suppression therapy using levothyroxine. Recommendations related to long-term management of differentiated thyroid cancer include those related to surveillance for recurrent disease using imaging and serum thyroglobulin, thyroid hormone therapy, management of recurrent and metastatic disease, consideration for clinical trials and targeted therapy, as well as directions for future research. Conclusions: We have developed evidence-based recommendations to inform clinical decision-making in the management of thyroid nodules and differentiated thyroid cancer. They represent, in our opinion, contemporary optimal care for patients with these disorders.

Primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) is a rare, but serious, cholestatic disease for which, to date, no effective therapy exists to halt disease progression toward end‐stage liver disease. Clinical trial design to study drugs that improve prognosis is hampered by the relatively low event rate of clinically relevant endpoints. To overcome this shortcoming, there is an urgent need to identify appropriate surrogate endpoints. At present, there are no established surrogate endpoints. This article provides a critical review and describes the results of a consensus process initiated by the International PSC Study Group to delineate appropriate candidate surrogate endpoints at present for clinical trials in this frequently dismal disease. The consensus process resulted in a shortlist of five candidates as surrogate endpoints for measuring disease progression: alkaline phosphatase (ALP); transient elastography (TE); histology; combination of ALP+histology; and bilirubin. Of these, histology, ALP, and TE came out as the most promising. However, the expert panel concluded that no biomarker currently exceeds level 3 validation. Combining multiple endpoints is advisable. Conclusion: At present, there are insufficient data to support level 2 validation for any surrogate endpoint in PSC. Concerted efforts by all stakeholders are highly needed. Novel, promising noninvasive biomarkers are under study and should be incorporated as exploratory endpoints in clinical trials. (Hepatology 2016;63:1357–1367)