Clinical decision support tools can help standardize best practices for radiologists and patients.
The evolving landscape of the health care system in the United States, including the focus on outcomes-based patient care, provides an ideal opportunity for the inclusion of imaging clinical decision support tools based on evidence-based guidelines, according to an article published in a recent special issue of The Journal of the American College of Radiology.
The article by Joshua Broder, MD, FACEP, associate professor in the division of emergency medicine at Duke University Medical Center, and Safwan S. Halabi, MD, of the department of radiology at Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, focused on the incorporation of these decision tools to help make imaging more transparent and effective.
“Clinical decision support tools augment, but do not replace, physician judgment; they help to standardize care toward best practices, so that patients receive the best care,” Broder told Diagnostic Imaging. “In the best circumstances, when based on outstanding research methods, clinical decision support tools reduce both over and under-utilization of diagnostic imaging and overturn physician misconceptions.”
In order to be effective, clinical decision rules must be both highly sensitive and specificity sufficient to reduce imaging utilization. Ideally, these rules would reduce costs, radiation exposure and patient evaluation times without compromising outcomes or quality of life.
As an example, Broder discussed the Canadian CT Head Rule (see sidebar), which overturned the long-held belief that loss of consciousness alone is a sufficient risk factor to require a head CT. The rule was prospectively derived, validated and studied in 10,000 patients. However, according to the article, it has not been widely adopted in the United States because people believe it to be complex and difficult to remember.
Canadian CT Head Rule
This clinical decision rule states that head CT is only required for minor head injuries in patients with any one of the following findings:
High Risk (for neurological intervention)
• GCS score <15 at two hours post injury
• Suspected open or depressed skull fracture
• Any sign of basal skull fracture
• Vomiting of two or more episodes
• Age 65 years or older
Medium Risk (for brain injury on CT)
• Retrograde amnesia to the event for 30 minutes or more
• Dangerous mechanism (pedestrian struck by motor vehicle, occupant ejected from motor vehicle, fall from elevation)
Reference
Stiell IG, Wells GA, Vandemheen K, et al. The Canadian CT Head Rule for patients with minor head injury. Lancet. 2001;357:1391-1396.
In general, some clinicians have been hesitant to employ clinical decision rules for imaging.
“Some practitioners may be unfamiliar with clinical decision support tools, or uncomfortable with risk,” Broder said. “Most clinical decision support instruments help us to ‘risk stratify’ patients – to identify patients with a low risk of serious conditions. However, some residual risk often remains.”
According to Broder, practitioners may be hesitant to shoulder that risk. For example, the Pulmonary Embolism Rule Out Criteria, when negative, suggest a risk of pulmonary embolism risk of less than 2 percent-but not zero. Medical professional groups could help by endorsing decision support tools and defining an acceptable risk threshold.
“If we continue to follow a zero risk tolerance, we will find it hard to reduce medical imaging use,” Broder said.
Furthermore, changes to the medical landscape are beginning to make the use of clinical decision tools easier. Specifically, the growth of electronic health records means that these rules could be incorporated into an entry for the medical record. When a patient’s data and history is imported into the record, decision support rules would be embedded, allowing physicians to terminate orders at the moment of entry if the rule indicates that imaging is not required.
“The evolving healthcare landscape supports comparative effectiveness research – trying to achieve the same or better results at lower cost,” Broder said. “In many cases, clinical decision support systems can yield benefits to all parties – shorter visits for patients who don’t require imaging, lower radiation exposures to patients when imaging is avoided, more efficient clinical practices with greater throughput when clinicians apply rules and avoid imaging, and cost savings.”
Study with CT Data Suggests Women with PE Have More Than Triple the One-Year Mortality Rate than Men
April 3rd 2025After a multivariable assessment including age and comorbidities, women with pulmonary embolism (PE) had a 48 percent higher risk of one-year mortality than men with PE, according to a new study involving over 33,000 patients.
The Reading Room: Racial and Ethnic Minorities, Cancer Screenings, and COVID-19
November 3rd 2020In this podcast episode, Dr. Shalom Kalnicki, from Montefiore and Albert Einstein College of Medicine, discusses the disparities minority patients face with cancer screenings and what can be done to increase access during the pandemic.
Predicting Diabetes on CT Scans: What New Research Reveals with Pancreatic Imaging Biomarkers
March 25th 2025Attenuation-based biomarkers on computed tomography (CT) scans demonstrated a 93 percent interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) agreement across three pancreatic segmentation algorithms for predicting diabetes, according to a study involving over 9,700 patients.
Can Photon-Counting CT be an Alternative to MRI for Assessing Liver Fat Fraction?
March 21st 2025Photon-counting CT fat fraction evaluation offered a maximum sensitivity of 81 percent for detecting steatosis and had a 91 percent ICC agreement with MRI proton density fat fraction assessment, according to new prospective research.