Adherence to the 2010 American college of cardiology foundation appropriate use criteria for cardiac computed tomography: Quality analysis at a tertiary referral center

Manavjot S. Sidhu, Heidi Lumish, Shanmugam Uthamalingam, Leif Christopher Engel, Suhny Abbara, Thomas J. Brady, Udo Hoffmann, Brian B. Ghoshhajra

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background: In November 2010, the American College of Cardiology Foundation published revised appropriateness criteria (AC) for cardiac computed tomography (CT). We evaluated adherence to these criteria by providers of different subspecialties at a tertiary referral center. Methods: Reports of 383 consecutive patients who underwent clinically indicated cardiac CT from December 1, 2010, to July 31, 2011, were reviewed by physicians with appropriate training in cardiac CT. Scans were classified as appropriate, inappropriate, or uncertain based on the revised 2010 AC. Studies that did not fall under any of the specified indications were labeled as unclassified. Adherence to the AC was also analyzed as a function of provider type. Research scans were excluded from this analysis. Results: Three hundred eight exams (80%)were classified as appropriate; 26 (7%), as inappropriate; 30 (8%), as uncertain; and 19 (5%), as unclassified. Of the 19 (5%) unclassified cardiac CTexams, the most common indication was for evaluation of suspected aortic dissection. Three hundred five exams (80%) were referred by cardiologists; 73 (19%), by internists; and 5 (1%), by neurologists. Of the 305 cardiology-referred studies, 221 (73%) were ordered by general cardiologists; 28 (9%), by interventional cardiologists; and 56 (19%), by electrophysiologists. There was no significant difference in adherence to the criteria between provider specialties or between cardiology subspecialties (P > 0.05). Conclusions: Adherence to the 2010 AC at our center was uniformly high across provider specialties.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)40-43
Number of pages4
JournalJournal of Patient Safety
Volume12
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - 2016

Fingerprint

Cardiology
Tertiary Care Centers
Tomography
Dissection
Physicians
Research
Cardiologists

Keywords

  • Appropriate use criteria
  • Cardiac computed tomography
  • Quality improvement

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Leadership and Management
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Cite this

Adherence to the 2010 American college of cardiology foundation appropriate use criteria for cardiac computed tomography : Quality analysis at a tertiary referral center. / Sidhu, Manavjot S.; Lumish, Heidi; Uthamalingam, Shanmugam; Engel, Leif Christopher; Abbara, Suhny; Brady, Thomas J.; Hoffmann, Udo; Ghoshhajra, Brian B.

In: Journal of Patient Safety, Vol. 12, No. 1, 2016, p. 40-43.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Sidhu, Manavjot S. ; Lumish, Heidi ; Uthamalingam, Shanmugam ; Engel, Leif Christopher ; Abbara, Suhny ; Brady, Thomas J. ; Hoffmann, Udo ; Ghoshhajra, Brian B. / Adherence to the 2010 American college of cardiology foundation appropriate use criteria for cardiac computed tomography : Quality analysis at a tertiary referral center. In: Journal of Patient Safety. 2016 ; Vol. 12, No. 1. pp. 40-43.
@article{31207128253c4f7c845adb9a670d2804,
title = "Adherence to the 2010 American college of cardiology foundation appropriate use criteria for cardiac computed tomography: Quality analysis at a tertiary referral center",
abstract = "Background: In November 2010, the American College of Cardiology Foundation published revised appropriateness criteria (AC) for cardiac computed tomography (CT). We evaluated adherence to these criteria by providers of different subspecialties at a tertiary referral center. Methods: Reports of 383 consecutive patients who underwent clinically indicated cardiac CT from December 1, 2010, to July 31, 2011, were reviewed by physicians with appropriate training in cardiac CT. Scans were classified as appropriate, inappropriate, or uncertain based on the revised 2010 AC. Studies that did not fall under any of the specified indications were labeled as unclassified. Adherence to the AC was also analyzed as a function of provider type. Research scans were excluded from this analysis. Results: Three hundred eight exams (80{\%})were classified as appropriate; 26 (7{\%}), as inappropriate; 30 (8{\%}), as uncertain; and 19 (5{\%}), as unclassified. Of the 19 (5{\%}) unclassified cardiac CTexams, the most common indication was for evaluation of suspected aortic dissection. Three hundred five exams (80{\%}) were referred by cardiologists; 73 (19{\%}), by internists; and 5 (1{\%}), by neurologists. Of the 305 cardiology-referred studies, 221 (73{\%}) were ordered by general cardiologists; 28 (9{\%}), by interventional cardiologists; and 56 (19{\%}), by electrophysiologists. There was no significant difference in adherence to the criteria between provider specialties or between cardiology subspecialties (P > 0.05). Conclusions: Adherence to the 2010 AC at our center was uniformly high across provider specialties.",
keywords = "Appropriate use criteria, Cardiac computed tomography, Quality improvement",
author = "Sidhu, {Manavjot S.} and Heidi Lumish and Shanmugam Uthamalingam and Engel, {Leif Christopher} and Suhny Abbara and Brady, {Thomas J.} and Udo Hoffmann and Ghoshhajra, {Brian B.}",
year = "2016",
doi = "10.1097/PTS.0000000000000124",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "12",
pages = "40--43",
journal = "Journal of Patient Safety",
issn = "1549-8417",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Adherence to the 2010 American college of cardiology foundation appropriate use criteria for cardiac computed tomography

T2 - Quality analysis at a tertiary referral center

AU - Sidhu, Manavjot S.

AU - Lumish, Heidi

AU - Uthamalingam, Shanmugam

AU - Engel, Leif Christopher

AU - Abbara, Suhny

AU - Brady, Thomas J.

AU - Hoffmann, Udo

AU - Ghoshhajra, Brian B.

PY - 2016

Y1 - 2016

N2 - Background: In November 2010, the American College of Cardiology Foundation published revised appropriateness criteria (AC) for cardiac computed tomography (CT). We evaluated adherence to these criteria by providers of different subspecialties at a tertiary referral center. Methods: Reports of 383 consecutive patients who underwent clinically indicated cardiac CT from December 1, 2010, to July 31, 2011, were reviewed by physicians with appropriate training in cardiac CT. Scans were classified as appropriate, inappropriate, or uncertain based on the revised 2010 AC. Studies that did not fall under any of the specified indications were labeled as unclassified. Adherence to the AC was also analyzed as a function of provider type. Research scans were excluded from this analysis. Results: Three hundred eight exams (80%)were classified as appropriate; 26 (7%), as inappropriate; 30 (8%), as uncertain; and 19 (5%), as unclassified. Of the 19 (5%) unclassified cardiac CTexams, the most common indication was for evaluation of suspected aortic dissection. Three hundred five exams (80%) were referred by cardiologists; 73 (19%), by internists; and 5 (1%), by neurologists. Of the 305 cardiology-referred studies, 221 (73%) were ordered by general cardiologists; 28 (9%), by interventional cardiologists; and 56 (19%), by electrophysiologists. There was no significant difference in adherence to the criteria between provider specialties or between cardiology subspecialties (P > 0.05). Conclusions: Adherence to the 2010 AC at our center was uniformly high across provider specialties.

AB - Background: In November 2010, the American College of Cardiology Foundation published revised appropriateness criteria (AC) for cardiac computed tomography (CT). We evaluated adherence to these criteria by providers of different subspecialties at a tertiary referral center. Methods: Reports of 383 consecutive patients who underwent clinically indicated cardiac CT from December 1, 2010, to July 31, 2011, were reviewed by physicians with appropriate training in cardiac CT. Scans were classified as appropriate, inappropriate, or uncertain based on the revised 2010 AC. Studies that did not fall under any of the specified indications were labeled as unclassified. Adherence to the AC was also analyzed as a function of provider type. Research scans were excluded from this analysis. Results: Three hundred eight exams (80%)were classified as appropriate; 26 (7%), as inappropriate; 30 (8%), as uncertain; and 19 (5%), as unclassified. Of the 19 (5%) unclassified cardiac CTexams, the most common indication was for evaluation of suspected aortic dissection. Three hundred five exams (80%) were referred by cardiologists; 73 (19%), by internists; and 5 (1%), by neurologists. Of the 305 cardiology-referred studies, 221 (73%) were ordered by general cardiologists; 28 (9%), by interventional cardiologists; and 56 (19%), by electrophysiologists. There was no significant difference in adherence to the criteria between provider specialties or between cardiology subspecialties (P > 0.05). Conclusions: Adherence to the 2010 AC at our center was uniformly high across provider specialties.

KW - Appropriate use criteria

KW - Cardiac computed tomography

KW - Quality improvement

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84959149488&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84959149488&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/PTS.0000000000000124

DO - 10.1097/PTS.0000000000000124

M3 - Article

C2 - 25136850

AN - SCOPUS:84959149488

VL - 12

SP - 40

EP - 43

JO - Journal of Patient Safety

JF - Journal of Patient Safety

SN - 1549-8417

IS - 1

ER -