Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You and Your Team.

Learn More →

Use of Neuroimaging in US Emergency Departments

Use of Neuroimaging in US Emergency Departments Advanced diagnostic imaging use is increasing, raising concerns about patient safety and cost.1 Recent estimates indicate that 4000 future cancers may result from the head computed tomographic (CT) examinations performed nationwide in 20072 and that costs of CT and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) doubled between 1997 and 2006.3 In US emergency departments (EDs), the greatest increase has been in neuroimaging (head CT and MRI).4 Nevertheless, there are no national benchmarks against which health care providers and hospitals can measure their use of ED neuroimaging. We aimed to calculate head CT and MRI use in US EDs and to examine patient and hospital factors associated with use. Methods We performed a cross-sectional analysis of neuroimaging in US EDs by analyzing the 2007 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) ED component with a primary outcome of head CT use and a secondary outcome of head MRI use. We coded patient and hospital covariates a priori to identify predictors of neuroimaging and calculated the percentage of visits (with 95% confidence intervals [CIs]) associated with neuroimaging. We conducted multivariate logistic regression to estimate the adjusted association of covariates on the primary outcome. The regression model had good fit, with a C statistic of 0.71. Among visits in which head CT was performed, we calculated the leading reasons for visit5 and discharge diagnoses by grouping primary International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification discharge diagnoses into the 285 clinical categories of the Clinical Classification System.6 We performed all statistical analyses using SAS 9.1.3 (SAS Institute Inc, Cary, North Carolina). Results There were approximately 117 million visits to 4891 US EDs in 2007, based on 35 490 ED visits in the NHAMCS sample. Head CT scans were performed during 6.7% (95% CI, 6.1%-7.3%) of visits, while head MRIs were performed during 0.26% (95% CI, 0.18%-0.35%) of visits. Patient and hospital characteristics associated with neuroimaging are presented in the Table. Patient characteristics independently associated with lower use of head CT use were decreasing age and non-Hispanic black race and ethnicity (vs non-Hispanic whites). Hospital characteristics associated with lower CT use included rural setting (vs urban) and hospitals owned by state or local governments (vs nonprofit hospitals). The 3 leading reasons for visits among patients receiving head CTs in the ED were trauma (18.1%; 95% CI, 12.8%-23.5%), headache (13.0%; 95% CI, 10.8%-15.2%), and dizziness (6.1%, 95% CI, 4.6%-7.6%). The 3 leading discharge diagnosis categories were trauma (20.5%; 95% CI, 15.8%-25.3%), headache (9.2%; 95% CI, 7.4%-11.0%), and epilepsy/convulsions (5.2%; 95% CI, 3.8%-6.6%). Comment To our knowledge, this study provides the first nationally representative benchmarks of ED neuroimaging. In 2007, 1 in 14 ED patients received head CT, while 1 in 400 underwent head MRI. Increasing age was the strongest predictor of head CT use. While 1 in 34 children younger than 18 years received head CT, 1 in 7 patients 65 and older received one. Current guidelines addressing the use of ED head CT for trauma7 and acute headache8 exclude these older patients. Organizations interested in measuring and reducing neuroimaging will be challenged to define acceptable evidence-based appropriateness standards for older adults. Use of head CT varied by race: 1 in 14 non-Hispanic white patients received head CT, compared with 1 in 19 non-Hispanic black patients. Yet it remains unclear whether this difference represents a quality disparity (ie, underuse) or an overuse disparity because the optimal rate of imaging is unknown and we could not assess appropriateness. Large numbers of US ED patients are undergoing high-cost neuroimaging and receiving ionizing radiation with known cancer risks. Further research on appropriate indications for neuroimaging and implementation of performance improvement programs are needed to ensure that these valuable technologies are used in a safe and cost-effective manner. Correspondence: Dr Raja, Department of Emergency Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 75 Francis St, Boston, MA 02115 (asraja@partners.org). Author Contributions:Study concept and design: Raja, Zane, Khorasani, and Schuur. Acquisition of data: Raja and Schuur. Analysis and interpretation of data: Raja, Andruchow, and Schuur. Drafting of the manuscript: Raja, Andruchow, and Zane. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Raja, Andruchow, Zane, Khorasani, and Schuur. Statistical analysis: Raja and Schuur. Administrative, technical, and material support: Raja, Zane, and Khorasani. Study supervision: Khorasani and Schuur. Financial Disclosure: None reported. References 1. US Government Accountability Office, Medicare Part B Imaging Services: Rapid Spending Growth and Shift to Physician Offices Indicate Need for CMS to Consider Additional Management Practices. Washington, DC US Government Accountability Office2008; 2. Berrington de González AMahesh MKim K-P et al. Projected cancer risks from computed tomographic scans performed in the United States in 2007. Arch Intern Med 2009;169 (22) 2071- 2077PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 3. Smith-Bindman RMiglioretti DLLarson EB Rising use of diagnostic medical imaging in a large integrated health system. Health Aff (Millwood) 2008;27 (6) 1491- 1502PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 4. Polevoi SKHulley GS Marked increase in CT and MR utilization in the emergency department. J Emerg Med 2007;33 (3) 328Google ScholarCrossref 5. Schneider DAppleton L A reason for visit classification system for ambulatory care. Med Rec News 1976;47 (5) 59- 66, 68PubMedGoogle Scholar 6. Elixhauser ASteiner CPalmer L Clinical Classification Software (CCS). Rockville, MD US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality2008; 7. Jagoda ASBazarian JJBruns JJ Jr et al. American College of Emergency Physicians; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Clinical policy: neuroimaging and decisionmaking in adult mild traumatic brain injury in the acute setting. Ann Emerg Med 2008;52 (6) 714- 748PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 8. Edlow JAPanagos PDGodwin SAThomas TLDecker WWAmerican College of Emergency Physicians, Clinical policy: critical issues in the evaluation and management of adult patients presenting to the emergency department with acute headache. Ann Emerg Med 2008;52 (4) 407- 436PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Archives of Internal Medicine American Medical Association

Loading next page...
 
/lp/american-medical-association/use-of-neuroimaging-in-us-emergency-departments-fGg6HdymQo
Publisher
American Medical Association
Copyright
Copyright © 2011 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.
ISSN
0003-9926
eISSN
1538-3679
DOI
10.1001/archinternmed.2010.520
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Advanced diagnostic imaging use is increasing, raising concerns about patient safety and cost.1 Recent estimates indicate that 4000 future cancers may result from the head computed tomographic (CT) examinations performed nationwide in 20072 and that costs of CT and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) doubled between 1997 and 2006.3 In US emergency departments (EDs), the greatest increase has been in neuroimaging (head CT and MRI).4 Nevertheless, there are no national benchmarks against which health care providers and hospitals can measure their use of ED neuroimaging. We aimed to calculate head CT and MRI use in US EDs and to examine patient and hospital factors associated with use. Methods We performed a cross-sectional analysis of neuroimaging in US EDs by analyzing the 2007 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) ED component with a primary outcome of head CT use and a secondary outcome of head MRI use. We coded patient and hospital covariates a priori to identify predictors of neuroimaging and calculated the percentage of visits (with 95% confidence intervals [CIs]) associated with neuroimaging. We conducted multivariate logistic regression to estimate the adjusted association of covariates on the primary outcome. The regression model had good fit, with a C statistic of 0.71. Among visits in which head CT was performed, we calculated the leading reasons for visit5 and discharge diagnoses by grouping primary International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification discharge diagnoses into the 285 clinical categories of the Clinical Classification System.6 We performed all statistical analyses using SAS 9.1.3 (SAS Institute Inc, Cary, North Carolina). Results There were approximately 117 million visits to 4891 US EDs in 2007, based on 35 490 ED visits in the NHAMCS sample. Head CT scans were performed during 6.7% (95% CI, 6.1%-7.3%) of visits, while head MRIs were performed during 0.26% (95% CI, 0.18%-0.35%) of visits. Patient and hospital characteristics associated with neuroimaging are presented in the Table. Patient characteristics independently associated with lower use of head CT use were decreasing age and non-Hispanic black race and ethnicity (vs non-Hispanic whites). Hospital characteristics associated with lower CT use included rural setting (vs urban) and hospitals owned by state or local governments (vs nonprofit hospitals). The 3 leading reasons for visits among patients receiving head CTs in the ED were trauma (18.1%; 95% CI, 12.8%-23.5%), headache (13.0%; 95% CI, 10.8%-15.2%), and dizziness (6.1%, 95% CI, 4.6%-7.6%). The 3 leading discharge diagnosis categories were trauma (20.5%; 95% CI, 15.8%-25.3%), headache (9.2%; 95% CI, 7.4%-11.0%), and epilepsy/convulsions (5.2%; 95% CI, 3.8%-6.6%). Comment To our knowledge, this study provides the first nationally representative benchmarks of ED neuroimaging. In 2007, 1 in 14 ED patients received head CT, while 1 in 400 underwent head MRI. Increasing age was the strongest predictor of head CT use. While 1 in 34 children younger than 18 years received head CT, 1 in 7 patients 65 and older received one. Current guidelines addressing the use of ED head CT for trauma7 and acute headache8 exclude these older patients. Organizations interested in measuring and reducing neuroimaging will be challenged to define acceptable evidence-based appropriateness standards for older adults. Use of head CT varied by race: 1 in 14 non-Hispanic white patients received head CT, compared with 1 in 19 non-Hispanic black patients. Yet it remains unclear whether this difference represents a quality disparity (ie, underuse) or an overuse disparity because the optimal rate of imaging is unknown and we could not assess appropriateness. Large numbers of US ED patients are undergoing high-cost neuroimaging and receiving ionizing radiation with known cancer risks. Further research on appropriate indications for neuroimaging and implementation of performance improvement programs are needed to ensure that these valuable technologies are used in a safe and cost-effective manner. Correspondence: Dr Raja, Department of Emergency Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 75 Francis St, Boston, MA 02115 (asraja@partners.org). Author Contributions:Study concept and design: Raja, Zane, Khorasani, and Schuur. Acquisition of data: Raja and Schuur. Analysis and interpretation of data: Raja, Andruchow, and Schuur. Drafting of the manuscript: Raja, Andruchow, and Zane. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Raja, Andruchow, Zane, Khorasani, and Schuur. Statistical analysis: Raja and Schuur. Administrative, technical, and material support: Raja, Zane, and Khorasani. Study supervision: Khorasani and Schuur. Financial Disclosure: None reported. References 1. US Government Accountability Office, Medicare Part B Imaging Services: Rapid Spending Growth and Shift to Physician Offices Indicate Need for CMS to Consider Additional Management Practices. Washington, DC US Government Accountability Office2008; 2. Berrington de González AMahesh MKim K-P et al. Projected cancer risks from computed tomographic scans performed in the United States in 2007. Arch Intern Med 2009;169 (22) 2071- 2077PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 3. Smith-Bindman RMiglioretti DLLarson EB Rising use of diagnostic medical imaging in a large integrated health system. Health Aff (Millwood) 2008;27 (6) 1491- 1502PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 4. Polevoi SKHulley GS Marked increase in CT and MR utilization in the emergency department. J Emerg Med 2007;33 (3) 328Google ScholarCrossref 5. Schneider DAppleton L A reason for visit classification system for ambulatory care. Med Rec News 1976;47 (5) 59- 66, 68PubMedGoogle Scholar 6. Elixhauser ASteiner CPalmer L Clinical Classification Software (CCS). Rockville, MD US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality2008; 7. Jagoda ASBazarian JJBruns JJ Jr et al. American College of Emergency Physicians; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Clinical policy: neuroimaging and decisionmaking in adult mild traumatic brain injury in the acute setting. Ann Emerg Med 2008;52 (6) 714- 748PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 8. Edlow JAPanagos PDGodwin SAThomas TLDecker WWAmerican College of Emergency Physicians, Clinical policy: critical issues in the evaluation and management of adult patients presenting to the emergency department with acute headache. Ann Emerg Med 2008;52 (4) 407- 436PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref

Journal

Archives of Internal MedicineAmerican Medical Association

Published: Feb 14, 2011

Keywords: neuroimaging,emergency service, hospital

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$499/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create folders to
organize your research

Export folders, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month