1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Ordering of Diagnostic Imaging by Physical Therapists: A 5-Year Retrospective Practice Analysis

      1 , 2 , 3 , 4
      Physical Therapy
      Oxford University Press (OUP)

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Significant progress has been made in implementing direct access. As more therapists transition into direct access roles, it seems prudent to consider how additional resources common to other first-contact providers might impact patient care.

          Objectives

          Direct referral for diagnostic imaging by physical therapists is relatively rare in the civilian setting and little has been published on the subject. The primary objective of this study was to examine the appropriateness of diagnostic imaging studies referred by civilian physical therapists at an academic medical center. Secondary objectives were to track reimbursement data and overall use rates.

          Design

          This was a single-center, retrospective practice analysis of 10 physical therapists over a period of nearly 5 years.

          Methods

          The electronic medical record was reviewed for each patient who had an imaging referral placed by a physical therapist. Relevant clinical exam findings and patient history were provided to a radiologist who then applied the American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria to determine appropriateness. Reimbursement data and therapist use rates were also evaluated.

          Results

          Of the 108 total imaging studies, 91% were considered appropriate. Overall, use rates per direct access evaluation were 9% for plain film x-rays and 4% for advanced imaging. Reimbursement was 100%.

          Limitations

          This study was limited to 10 physical therapists at 1 practice location. Appropriateness was evaluated by 1 radiologist. The educational background of referring therapists was not evaluated.

          Conclusions

          Physical therapists demonstrated appropriate use of diagnostic imaging in the vast majority of cases (91%). They were judicious in their use of imaging, and there were no issues with reimbursement. These findings could be useful for physical therapists interested in acquiring diagnostic imaging referral privileges.

          Related collections

          Most cited references25

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Systematic literature review of imaging features of spinal degeneration in asymptomatic populations.

          Degenerative changes are commonly found in spine imaging but often occur in pain-free individuals as well as those with back pain. We sought to estimate the prevalence, by age, of common degenerative spine conditions by performing a systematic review studying the prevalence of spine degeneration on imaging in asymptomatic individuals.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Diagnostic evaluation of low back pain with emphasis on imaging.

            To review evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of clinical information and imaging for patients with low back pain in primary care settings. MEDLINE search (January 1966 to September 2001) for articles and reviews relevant to the accuracy of the clinical and radiographic examination of patients with low back pain. The authors reviewed abstracts and selected articles for review on the basis of a combined judgment. Data on the clinical examination were based primarily on recent systematic reviews; data on imaging tests were based primarily on original articles. Diagnostic results were extracted by one or the other author. Quality of methods was evaluated informally. Major potential biases were identified, but neither quantitative data extraction nor scoring was done. Formal meta-analysis was not used because the diagnostic hardware and software, gold standards, and patient selection methods were heterogeneous and the number of studies was small. Sensitivity for cancer was highest for magnetic resonance imaging (0.83 to 0.93) and radionuclide scanning (0.74 to 0.98); specificity was highest for magnetic resonance imaging (0.9 to 0.97) and radiography (0.95 to 0.99). Magnetic resonance imaging was the most sensitive (0.96) and specific (0.92) test for infection. The sensitivity and specificity of magnetic resonance imaging for herniated discs were slightly higher than those for computed tomography but very similar for the diagnosis of spinal stenosis. The data suggest a diagnostic strategy similar to the 1994 Agency for Health Care Policy and Research guidelines. For adults younger than 50 years of age with no signs or symptoms of systemic disease, symptomatic therapy without imaging is appropriate. For patients 50 years of age and older or those whose findings suggest systemic disease, plain radiography and simple laboratory tests can almost completely rule out underlying systemic diseases. Advanced imaging should be reserved for patients who are considering surgery or those in whom systemic disease is strongly suspected.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Analysis of appropriateness of outpatient CT and MRI referred from primary care clinics at an academic medical center: how critical is the need for improved decision support?

              The aim of this study was to retrospectively analyze a large group of CT and MRI examinations for appropriateness using evidence-based guidelines. The authors reviewed medical records from 459 elective outpatient CT and MR examinations from primary care physicians. Evidence-based appropriateness criteria from a radiology benefit management company were used to determine if the examination would have met criteria for approval. Submitted clinical history at the time of interpretation and clinic notes and laboratory results preceding the date of the imaging study were examined to simulate a real-time consultation with the referring provider. The radiology reports and subsequent clinic visits were analyzed for outcomes. Of the 459 examinations reviewed, 284 (62%) were CT and 175 (38%) were MRI. Three hundred forty-one (74%) were considered appropriate, and 118 (26%) were not considered appropriate. Examples of inappropriate examinations included brain CT for chronic headache, lumbar spine MR for acute back pain, knee or shoulder MRI in patients with osteoarthritis, and CT for hematuria during a urinary tract infection. Fifty-eight percent of the appropriate studies had positive results and affected subsequent management, whereas only thirteen percent [corrected] of inappropriate studies had positive results and affected management. A high percentage of examinations not meeting appropriateness criteria and subsequently yielding negative results suggests a need for tools to help primary care physicians improve the quality of their imaging decision requests. In the current environment, which stresses cost containment and comparative effectiveness, traditional radiology benefit management tools are being challenged by clinical decision support, with an emphasis on provider education coupled with electronic order entry systems.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Physical Therapy
                Oxford University Press (OUP)
                0031-9023
                1538-6724
                August 2019
                August 01 2019
                January 31 2019
                August 2019
                August 01 2019
                January 31 2019
                : 99
                : 8
                : 1020-1026
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Physical Therapy, University of Illinois at Chicago College of Applied Health Sciences, Chicago, IL 60612 (USA)
                [2 ]Department of Physical Therapy, University of Illinois at Chicago College of Applied Health Sciences
                [3 ]Department of Physical Therapy, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, District of Columbia
                [4 ]Department of Radiology, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital
                Article
                10.1093/ptj/pzz015
                30715477
                462a5ede-45ca-4afd-8e04-303246136483
                © 2019

                https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article