title: Correlation of the Strength of Recommendations for Additional Imaging to Adherence Rate and Diagnostic Yield.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between the wording of radiologist recommendations for chest CT with the likelihood of recommendation adherence and the diagnostic yield of the recommended follow-up CT imaging.
  
  
  METHODS
  This HIPAA-compliant retrospective study had institutional review board approval, including waiver of the requirement for patient consent. All outpatient chest radiographic (CXR) studies performed at a tertiary care academic medical center in 2008 (n = 29,138) were searched to identify examinations with recommendations for chest CT. The wording of chest CT recommendations was classified as conditional or absolute, on the basis of whether the recommendation stood independent of the clinical judgment of the ordering clinician. Using the radiology information system, patients who underwent chest CT within 90 days of the index CXR study containing the recommendation were determined, and the CT studies were evaluated to determine if there were abnormalities corresponding to the CXR abnormalities that prompted the recommendations. Corresponding abnormalities were categorized as clinically relevant or not, on the basis of whether further workup or treatment was warranted. Groups were compared using t tests and Fisher exact tests.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Recommendations for chest CT appeared in 4.5% of outpatient CXR studies (1,316 of 29,138; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.3%-4.8%); 39.4% (519 of 1,316; 95% CI, 36.8%-42.0%) were conditional and 60.6% (797 of 1,316; 95% CI, 58.0%-63.2%) were absolute. Patients with absolute recommendations were significantly more likely to undergo follow-up chest CT within 90 days than patients with conditional recommendations (67.8% vs 45.8%, respectively, P < .001). Despite this difference in provider adherence, there was no significant difference between the conditional and absolute recommendation groups with regard to the incidence of clinically relevant corresponding findings (P = .16) or malignancy (P = .08) on follow-up CT.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Conditional radiologist recommendations are associated with decreased provider adherence, though the likelihood of a clinically relevant finding on follow-up CT is no different than with absolute recommendations.
authors.affiliation: Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. Electronic address: hbharvey@partners.org.
authors.forename: H Benjamin
authors.initials: HB
authors.lastname: Harvey
authors.affiliation: Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
authors.forename: Carol C
authors.initials: CC
authors.lastname: Wu
authors.affiliation: Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
authors.forename: Matthew D
authors.initials: MD
authors.lastname: Gilman
authors.affiliation: Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, Massachusetts.
authors.forename: Vartan
authors.initials: V
authors.lastname: Vartanians
authors.affiliation: Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Institute for Technology Assessment, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
authors.forename: Elkan F
authors.initials: EF
authors.lastname: Halpern
authors.affiliation: Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Institute for Technology Assessment, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
authors.forename: Pari V
authors.initials: PV
authors.lastname: Pandharipande
authors.affiliation: Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
authors.forename: Joanne O
authors.initials: JO
authors.lastname: Shepard
authors.affiliation: Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
authors.forename: Tarik K
authors.initials: TK
authors.lastname: Alkasab
mesh_terms: D019983:Guideline Adherence / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D006801:Humans; D008404:Massachusetts / Q000453:epidemiology; D008875:Middle Aged; D017410:Practice Guidelines as Topic; D013902:Radiography, Thoracic / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D011871:Radiology / Q000592:standards / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D011873:Radiology Information Systems / Q000592:standards / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D012017:Referral and Consultation / Q000592:standards* / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D014057:Tomography, X-Ray Computed / Q000592:standards* / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D014481:United States; D014600:Utilization Review
keywords: Recommendation; adherence; diagnostic yield; radiology reporting; strength