Skyrocketing rates of head CT in the ED: Don’t look at advanced practice providers
The meteoric rise of noncontrast head CT in emergency settings is not explained by the conspicuous proliferation of nurse practitioners and physician assistants in the ED.
The researchers who expected to find such a connection can’t be faulted for testing the hypothesis. Noncontrast head CT utilization spiked more than 500% between 1994 and 2015, while NPs and PAs saw only 1% of ED patients in 1995 but were closing in on 6% as far back as 2009.
What’s more, a recent Medicare database analysis “demonstrated that NP/PAs order significantly more imaging studies in the outpatient clinic environment compared to primary care physicians for both new and established patients,” the researchers point out in introducing their study, which Academic Radiology published online May 30.
To see if this effect carried over to ED-based noncontrast head CT, the team, led by Debayan Bhaumik, MD, and Andrew Callen, MD, of the University of Colorado reviewed the records of more than 6,600 patients who underwent the exam at their institution over a seven-year period.
They recorded rates of positive findings, which would tend to indicate appropriate use of the imaging exam in question, along with the training and experience span of ordering clinicians and numerous additional attributes of patients and ED providers.
Defining exam positivity as “any intracranial abnormality necessitating a change in acute management”—e.g., acute hemorrhage, hydrocephalus, herniation, worsening prior findings—the team found 4.6% of physician-ordered exams came back positive vs. 3.76% of NP/PA-ordered exams.
However, the differences were not statistically significant, and increasing provider experience was not associated with positivity, Bhaumik and co-authors report.
Factors associated with increased noncontrast head CT positivity were increasing patient age, the study indication of cancer, a focal neurological complaint and the study being ordered during the daytime.
Factors associated with decreased exam positivity were trauma or vertigo/dizziness.
“No significant differences in CT positivity between NP/PAs and physicians suggest there are similar ordering practices for this imaging study between the two groups,” the authors comment in their discussion.
They underscore the importance of contextualizing their project as an attempted comparative measure of over/underutilization while recognizing that, in some clinical scenarios, a negative noncontrast head CT “can acutely change patient management and therefore may not necessarily be a byproduct of overutilization.”
The lack of a significant difference in rates of exam positivity between physicians and NP/PA, even after accounting for years of experience, “suggests increasing utilization of head CTs in the ED is not due to the increasing presence of NP/PAs, and may be reflective of general practice trends and clear diagnostic algorithms leading to head CT.”
More:
Our data is relatively discordant with prior work demonstrating that NP/PAs in comparison to physicians order excessive imaging studies in the outpatient clinic setting as well as the Emergency Department. This difference may be explained by the fact that the noncontrast head CT is unique in comparison to the broader scope of imaging and serves to answer a specific subset of clinical questions which likely have a higher degree of clinical concordance between NP/PAs and physicians in the ED setting.”
More Coverage of Emergency Imaging:
Disparities evident as CT stroke imaging rises sharply over 7-year period
4 increasingly common uses for imaging AI in the ED
Artificial intelligence for LVO stroke detection could save $11M annually, model estimates
Supplemental, short-protocol MRI a cost-effective addition for stroke patients in the ED
‘Free information’: Radiologists can also diagnose COVID-19 when reading CTA imaging for stroke
Reference:
- Debayan Bhaumik, Andrew Callen, et al., “Ordering Characteristics Predictive of Noncontrast CT Head Positivity in the Emergency Department.” Academic Radiology, May 30, 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2022.05.001