slide1
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Presenter Disclosure Information

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 31

multi-center assessment of the utilization of spect myocardial ... - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 246 Views
  • Uploaded on

Multi-center Assessment of the Utilization of SPECT Myocardial Perfusion Imaging Using the ACCF Appropriateness Criteria: The ACCF and United Healthcare SPECT Pilot Study .

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'multi-center assessment of the utilization of spect myocardial ...' - Pat_Xavi


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide1

Multi-center Assessment of the Utilization of SPECT Myocardial Perfusion Imaging Using the ACCF Appropriateness Criteria: The ACCF and United Healthcare SPECT Pilot Study

Robert C. Hendel, Manual Cerqueira, Kathleen Hewitt, Karen Caruth, Joseph Allen, Neil Jensen, Michael Wolk, Pamela S. Douglas, Ralph Brindis, American College of Cardiology Foundation, Washington, DC, UnitedHealthcare, Minneapolis, MN

Robert C. Hendel, MD, FACC

Midwest Heart Specialists

Winfield, IL

Chairman, ACCF/UHC SPECT-MPI Pilot Study

Late Breaking Clinical Trials

American College of Cardiology Scientific Sessions 2009

March 29, 2009

slide2

Presenter Disclosure Information

Robert C. Hendel, MD

The following relationships exist related to this presentation:

Consulting PGx Health Modest

Astellas Pharma Modest

GE Healthcare Modest

Research support Astellas Modest

GE Healthcare Modest

Organizational ACC (Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force)

background
BACKGROUND
  • Growth and cost of CV imaging has placed renewed attention on proper/optimal test ordering
  • True nature of utilization unknown
    • Overuse/underuse/appropriate use
  • Development and publication of SPECT-MPI appropriate use criteria (AUC) in 2005
    • Subsequent AUC for echo, CT, CMR
    • SPECT MPI revision 2009
  • Criteria widely available and increasingly being adopted, but evaluation in community practice settings required
goals of study
GOALS OF STUDY
  • Assess feasibility of tracking AUC
    • Point-of-service data collection
    • Computer derived indication assignment
  • Determine patterns of use for SPECT MPI in clinical practice
  • Evaluate the impact of referral source
  • Identify selected areas (indications) for quality improvement
methods
METHODS
  • Sites selected by ACC from potential locations provided by UHC
  • Data collection instrument and web-based entry system developed
  • Automated algorithm created
  • Audit of automated indication assignments
  • On-demand reports
  • Periodic overall and site-specific summaries provided
data collection form
DATA COLLECTION FORM
  • Front page
    • Patient Demographics
    • History & Risk Factors,
    • Prior procedures & Tests
  • Back page
    • Current Study
    • Reference section
  • Designed to be completed in one minute or less
methods enrollment periods
METHODSEnrollment Periods

3/1/08

8/15/08

10/15/08

2/28/09

SITE 1

2

3

4

5

6

1 SITE

2

3

4

5

6

Period 1 Period 2 Period 3

On-demand

Report

Paper

Report

risk assessment automated calculation and indication assignment
RISK ASSESSMENTAutomated Calculation and Indication Assignment

SYMPTOMATIC PATIENTS

(Diamond & Forrester)

ASYMPTOMATIC PATIENTS

(Framingham; CHD Risk)

appropriateness classification based on site
APPROPRIATENESS CLASSIFICATION Based on Site

Inappropriate

Range: 4-22%

n = 578 1200 1448 1448 322 932

appropriateness category based on patient factors
APPROPRIATENESS CATEGORYBased on Patient Factors

9.8%

19.3%

13.6%

15.5%

n = 3,046 2,882 3,468 2,460

p < 0.0001 p = 0.039

appropriateness category based on referral
APPROPRIATENESS CATEGORY Based on Referral

p < 0.0001

13.2%

19.5%

16.1%

9.9%

70.7%

70.7%

n = 4,792 n = 1,136

appropriateness category based on referral18
APPROPRIATENESS CATEGORY Based on Referral

p < 0.0001

13.2%

20.1%

16.0%

10.1%

70.9%

69.8%

n = 4,881 n = 1,047

conclusions
CONCLUSIONS
  • Data collection and analysis regarding appropriate use of SPECT imaging is feasible in busy community practice environment
    • Easy to use, point-of-ordering tool with web-based data entry
    • Automated determination of appropriateness
    • On-demand, benchmarked reports
  • Variable rates of test appropriateness
  • Consistent inappropriate indications
    • Asymptomatic, low risk patient are most frequent
  • Feedback/education may influence on practice habits
  • Less inappropriate testing from cardiologists than non-cardiologists
implications
IMPLICATIONS
  • Physicians and other health care professionals, working with medical societies, recognize the current healthcare environment
    • Active measures to optimize performance and cost-effectiveness
    • Preserve patient access to evaluation and treatment
  • The development and implementation of appropriate use criteria may offer an alternative to prior authorization/pre-certification approaches
    • Transparency
    • Expanded information regarding practice habits
    • Facilitation of on-going quality improvement
    • Movement toward point-of-order application
    • Potential for wide-scale utilization
  • Establishment of partnership between ACC, subspeciality societies, and health plans regarding responsible approach to medical imaging and continued emphasis on improving the quality of care
acknowledgments
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
  • American Society of Nuclear Cardiology (ASNC)
  • UnitedHealthcare
  • Leadership of ACC
    • Especially Douglas Weaver, Ralph Brindis, Michael Wolk, Pamela Douglas, Jack Lewin, and Janet Wright
  • Staff from ACC, NCDR, and DCRI
    • Notably Joseph Allen, Karen Caruth, Wenqin Pan, and Nichole Kallas
limitations
LIMITATIONS
  • Non-evaluable data
    • Missing information
    • Conflicting indications
  • Rolling recruitment with inconsistent time periods
  • Lack of validation of computer-assigned indications
    • Multiple indications
    • Audits reveal variance
  • Educational initiatives inconsistently applied
  • Non-adjudicated SPECT interpretations
spect results based on appropriateness category
SPECT RESULTSBased on Appropriateness Category

APPROPRIATE

UNCERTAIN

INAPPROPRIATE

p < 0.0003

probability of coronary artery disease based on age gender and symptoms diamond forrester
PROBABILITY OF CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE BASED ON AGE, GENDER AND SYMPTOMS(Diamond & Forrester)

CALCULATED

n = 6,332

ESTIMATED

n = 5,567

coronary heart disease risk based on framingham criteria
CORONARY HEART DISEASE RISKBASED ON FRAMINGHAM CRITERIA

ESTIMATED

n = 5,649

CALCULATED

n = 6,082

acc methodology for development of appropriate use criteria rand modified delphi method

Literature Review and Synthesis of the Evidence

List of indications and definitions

Appropriateness Score

(7-9) Appropriate

(4-6) Uncertain

(1-3) Inappropriate

ACC METHODOLOGY FOR DEVELOPMENT OF APPROPRIATE USE CRITERIA (Rand/Modified Delphi Method)

Writing Group

Outside Review of Indications and Additional Modification Prior to Rating

External Reviewers

Balanced panel comprised of different types of experts rates the indications in two rounds

1st Round – No interaction

Face-to-Face Meeting

2nd Round – Panel interaction

Appropriateness Determination

Technical Panel

Retrospective comparison with clinical records

Prospective clinical decision aids

Implementation Working Group

Validation

% Use that is Appropriate, Uncertain, Inappropriate

Increase Appropriateness

Adapted from Fitch K, et al. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User’s Manual, 2001, 4

ad