Download PDFPDF
Randomised controlled trial of audit-and-feedback strategies to reduce imaging overutilisation in the emergency department
  1. Karl T Chamberlin1,
  2. Christopher DiTullio1,
  3. Jennifer Rossman2,
  4. Bruce A Barton3,
  5. Martin Reznek1,
  6. Kevin Kotkowski1
  1. 1Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA
  2. 2University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA
  3. 3Quantitative Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Karl T Chamberlin; karl.chamberlin@umassmemorial.org

Abstract

Background Evaluation of neck trauma is a common reason for emergency department (ED) visits. There are several validated clinical decision rules, such as the National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study (NEXUS) Cervical Spine (C-spine) Rule, that can be used to risk stratify these patients and identify low-risk patients who do not require CT imaging. Overutilisation of CT imaging exposes patients to unnecessary radiation, impairs hospital throughput and increases healthcare costs. Various audit-and-feedback strategies have been described in other settings, but it is not known whether these strategies are effective for reducing imaging overutilisation in the ED. Additionally, the effectiveness of face-to-face feedback strategies as compared with digital feedback strategies for addressing this problem has not been previously evaluated. The aim of this study was to compare audit-and-feedback strategies to reduce CT overutilisation in the ED.

Methods This was a prospective randomised controlled trial, in which emergency medicine clinicians were randomised into three arms to receive digital feedback, hybrid face-to-face/digital feedback or no feedback. Each clinician received three rounds of feedback on patient encounters in which they ordered a CT of the C-spine. Patient encounters were retrospectively reviewed to determine each clinician’s overutilisation rate, defined as the percentage of patients who underwent CT of the C-spine despite being classified as low risk by NEXUS criteria.

Results A total of 78 emergency medicine clinicians were randomised into three arms. Baseline overutilisation rates for each group were 46%–47% of CT of the C-spine studies. After three rounds of audit-and-feedback strategy, the clinicians in the digital feedback group had an overutilisation rate of 33%, compared with 44% in the control group (p=0.020). The hybrid feedback group had an overutilisation rate of 36% (p=0.055 vs control; p=0.577 vs digital feedback). Over the study period, the digital group saw a reduction of 1.26 CT of the C-spine studies per provider per month (p=0.049), and the hybrid feedback group saw a reduction of 1.43 CTs per provider per month (p=0.044).

Conclusion A digital audit-and-feedback strategy is effective for reducing overutilisation of CT imaging of the C-spine in the ED, while the effectiveness of a hybrid strategy requires further investigation.

  • Emergency department
  • Implementation science
  • Diagnostic Imaging
  • Audit and feedback
  • Randomised controlled trial

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Footnotes

  • Contributors KTC, MR and KK contributed to study design, data collection, analysis and writing. BAB contributed to data analysis and writing. CD and JR contributed to literature review, data collection and writing. KTC is the guarantor.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.