pp 1-13 | Cite as

Reporting: Recommendations/Guidelines

Chapter
First Online:
Part of the Medical Radiology book series

Abstract

A core principle of quality improvement for better outcomes is consistency. With the increased use of medical imaging, incidental findings are more commonly being discovered. There is significant variability in the reporting and follow-up regarding incidental findings. This can lead to confusion for the referring physician unless specific guidance is offered by the radiologist. Other guidelines have also been developed for specific conditions and to help guide the management of the patient. The development, implementation, and use of guidelines can help foster consistency and lead to quality improvement.

In this chapter, the scope of the problem and process for development of guidelines will be addressed. Medicolegal and ethical implications of using guidelines are also discussed. Quality is enhanced by decreasing variation in practice and guidelines are an important tool. Guidelines should be broadly acceptable, easy to access, and straightforward to understand and apply. Development of guidelines under the auspices of established professional societies allows for endorsement and dissemination of recommendations. Radiologist adherence to guidelines can enhance informed decision-making, decrease variations in recommendations, decrease cost, and limit medical liability. This has potential to provide standardization, to improve patient care, and to improve confidence of the referring physicians.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. AMA’s Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs (2006) Opinion 8.08—Informed Consent, in Code of Medical Ethics. AMA, Chicago, ILGoogle Scholar
  2. American College of Radiology (2014) Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System ACR.org: American College of Radiology [cited 29 Jul 2016]. Quality & Safety | Additional Resources | LI-RADS. http://www.acr.org/Quality-Safety/Resources/LIRADS
  3. American College of Radiology (2016) Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS™). ACR.org: American College of Radiology [cited 29 Jul 2016]. Quality Safety | Additional Resources | Lung-RADS™. http://www.acr.org/Quality-Safety/Resources/LungRADS
  4. Baker LC, Atlas SW, Afendulis CC (2008) Expanded use of imaging technology and the challenge of measuring value. Health Aff (Millwood) 27(6):1467–1478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barry MJ, Edgman-Levitan S (2012) Shared decision making—pinnacle of patient-centered care. N Engl J Med 366(9):780–781CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bates DW et al (2003) Ten commandments for effective clinical decision support: making the practice of evidence-based medicine a reality. J Am Med Inform Assoc 10(6):523–530CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Berland LL (2009a) Incidental extracolonic findings on CT colonography: the impending deluge and its implications. J Am Coll Radiol 6(1):14–20CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Berland LL (2009b) Author’s reply. J Am Coll Radiol 6(8):599–600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Berland LL (2011) The American College of Radiology strategy for managing incidental findings on abdominal computed tomography. Radiol Clin N Am 49(2):237–243CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Berland LL et al (2010) Managing incidental findings on abdominal CT: white paper of the ACR incidental findings committee. J Am Coll Radiol 7(10):754–773CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Berland LL et al (2014) ACR members’ response to JACR white paper on the management of incidental abdominal CT findings. J Am Coll Radiol 11(1):30–35CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Berlin L (2011) The incidentaloma: a medicolegal dilemma. Radiol Clin N Am 49(2):245–255CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Berlin L (2016) Rethinking normal: benefits and risks of not reporting harmless incidental findings. J Am Coll Radiol 13(9):1025CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Boland GW et al (2011) Decision support for radiologist report recommendations. J Am Coll Radiol 8(12):819–823CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Boland GW, Enzmann DR, Duszak R Jr (2014) Actionable reporting. J Am Coll Radiol 11(9):844–845CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Brink JA (2010) The art and science of medical guidelines: what we know and what we believe. Radiology 254(1):20–21CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Brown SD (2013) Professional norms regarding how radiologists handle incidental findings. J Am Coll Radiol 10(4):253–257CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Casarella WJ (2002) A patient’s viewpoint on a current controversy. Radiology 224(3):927CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Court of Appeals of New York (1914) Mary E. Schloendorff v. The Society of the New York Hospital in New York; New England. Court of Appeals of New York p 125; 92Google Scholar
  20. Cronan JJ (2008) Thyroid nodules: is it time to turn off the US machines? Radiology 247(3):602–604CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Davies L, Welch HG (2006) Increasing incidence of thyroid cancer in the United States, 1973–2002. JAMA 295(18):2164–2167CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Ding A, Eisenberg JD, Pandharipande PV (2011) The economic burden of incidentally detected findings. Radiol Clin N Am 49(2):257–265CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Doubilet PM, Benson CB, Bourne T, Blaivas M (2014) Pregnancy SoRiUMPoEFTDoMaEoaVI. Diagnostic criteria for nonviable pregnancy early in the first trimester. Ultrasound Q 30(1):3–9CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Eisenberg RL, Fleischner S (2013) Ways to improve radiologists’ adherence to Fleischner Society guidelines for management of pulmonary nodules. J Am Coll Radiol 10(6):439–441CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Eisenberg RL, Bankier AA, Boiselle PM (2010) Compliance with Fleischner Society guidelines for management of small lung nodules: a survey of 834 radiologists. Radiology 255(1):218–224CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Epstein RM, Peters E (2009) Beyond information: exploring patients’ preferences. JAMA 302(2):195–197CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Esserman L, Thompson I (2010) Solving the overdiagnosis dilemma. J Natl Cancer Inst 102(9):582–583CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Esserman LJ, Thompson IM Jr, Reid B (2013) Overdiagnosis and overtreatment in cancer: an opportunity for improvement. JAMA 310(8):797–798CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Fletcher RH, Pignone M (2008) Extracolonic findings with computed tomographic colonography: asset or liability? Arch Intern Med 168(7):685–686CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Flicker MS et al (2008) Economic impact of extracolonic findings at computed tomographic colonography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 32(4):497–503CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Furtado CD et al (2005) Whole-body CT screening: spectrum of findings and recommendations in 1192 patients. Radiology 237(2):385–394CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Gawande A (2015) Overkill. In: The New Yorker. Conde Nast, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  33. Ghosh E, Levine D (2013) Recommendations for adnexal cysts: have the Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound consensus conference guidelines affected utilization of ultrasound? Ultrasound Q 29(1):21–24CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Gluecker TM et al (2003) Extracolonic findings at CT colonography: evaluation of prevalence and cost in a screening population. Gastroenterology 124(4):911–916CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Hara AK et al (2000) Incidental extracolonic findings at CT colonography. Radiology 215(2):353–357CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Hassan C et al (2008a) Computed tomographic colonography to screen for colorectal cancer, extracolonic cancer, and aortic aneurysm: model simulation with cost-effectiveness analysis. Arch Intern Med 168(7):696–705CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Heath I (2014) Role of fear in overdiagnosis and overtreatment—an essay by Iona Heath. BMJ 349:g6123CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Heller MT et al (2013) Managing incidental findings on abdominal and pelvic CT and MRI, part 3: white paper of the ACR Incidental Findings Committee II on splenic and nodal findings. J Am Coll Radiol 10(11):833–839CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Hellstrom M, Svensson MH, Lasson A (2004) Extracolonic and incidental findings on CT colonography (virtual colonoscopy). Am J Roentgenol 182(3):631–638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hillman BJ (2015) Certainty. J Am Coll Radiol 12(4):321CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Hoang JK et al (2015) Managing incidental thyroid nodules detected on imaging: white paper of the ACR Incidental Thyroid Findings Committee. J Am Coll Radiol 12(2):143–150CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Institute of Medicine (2011) Clinical practice guidelines we can trust. National Academic Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  43. Johnson PT et al (2011) Common incidental findings on MDCT: survey of radiologist recommendations for patient management. J Am Coll Radiol 8(11):762–767CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Khosa F et al (2013) Managing incidental findings on abdominal and pelvic CT and MRI, part 2: white paper of the ACR Incidental Findings Committee II on vascular findings. J Am Coll Radiol 10(10):789–794CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Kilani RK et al (2011) Self-referral in medical imaging: a meta-analysis of the literature. J Am Coll Radiol 8(7):469–476CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Kimberly JR et al (2009) Extracolonic findings at virtual colonoscopy: an important consideration in asymptomatic colorectal cancer screening. J Gen Intern Med 24(1):69–73CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Kucharczyk MJ et al (2011) Assessing the impact of incidental findings in a lung cancer screening study by using low-dose computed tomography. Can Assoc Radiol J 62(2):141–145CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Lee CI et al (2010) Incidental extracardiac findings at coronary CT: clinical and economic impact. Am J Roentgenol 194(6):1531–1538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Levine D et al (2010) Management of asymptomatic ovarian and other adnexal cysts imaged at US: Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound Consensus Conference Statement. Radiology 256(3):943–954CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Liu W, Mortele KJ, Silverman SG (2005) Incidental extraurinary findings at MDCT urography in patients with hematuria: prevalence and impact on imaging costs. Am J Roentgenol 185(4):1051–1056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lu MT et al (2016) Radiologist point-of-care clinical decision support and adherence to guidelines for incidental lung nodules. J Am Coll Radiol 13(2):156–162ADSCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Machaalany J et al (2009) Potential clinical and economic consequences of noncardiac incidental findings on cardiac computed tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol 54(16):1533–1541CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. MACRA (2016) The Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) and Alternative Payment Models (APMs). CMS.gov: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Quality-Initiatives-Patient-Assessment-Instruments/Value-Based-Programs/MACRA-MIPS-and-APMs/MACRA-MIPS-and-APMs.html
  54. MacRedmond R et al (2004) Screening for lung cancer using low dose CT scanning. Thorax 59(3):237–241CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  55. Maehara CK, Silverman SG, Lacson R, Khorasani R (2014) Journal club: renal masses detected at abdominal CT: radiologists’ adherence to guidelines regarding management recommendations and communication of critical results. Am J Roentgenol 203(4):828–834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Maizlin ZV et al (2007) Economic and ethical impact of extrarenal findings on potential living kidney donor assessment with computed tomography angiography. Transpl Int 20(4):338–342CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Masciocchi M, Wagner B, Lloyd B (2012) Quality review: Fleischner criteria adherence by radiologists in a large community hospital. J Am Coll Radiol 9(5):336–339CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Megibow AJ (2011) Preface imaging of incidentalomas. Radiol Clin N Am 49(2):xi–xiiCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Morgan MB, Branstetter BF, Clark C, House J, Baker D, Harnsberger HR (2011) Just-in-time radiologist decision support: the importance of PACS-integrated workflow. J Am Coll Radiol 8(7):497–500CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Morgan AE et al (2015) Extraurinary incidental findings on CT for hematuria: the radiologist’s role and downstream cost analysis. Am J Roentgenol 204(6):1160–1167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (2012) The guidelines manual. NICE, LondonGoogle Scholar
  62. Obuchowski NA et al (2007) Total-body screening: preliminary results of a pilot randomized controlled trial. J Am Coll Radiol 4(9):604–611CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Pandharipande PV, Herts BR, Gore RM et al (2016) Rethinking normal: benefits and risks of not reporting harmless incidental findings. J Am Coll Radiol 13(7):764–767CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Patel MD et al (2013) Managing incidental findings on abdominal and pelvic CT and MRI, part 1: white paper of the ACR Incidental Findings Committee II on adnexal findings. J Am Coll Radiol 10(9):675–681CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Pickhardt PJ et al (2008) Unsuspected extracolonic findings at screening CT colonography: clinical and economic impact. Radiology 249(1):151–159CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. PQRS (2015) Measure #405: appropriate follow-up imaging for incidental abdominal lesions—national quality strategy domain: effective clinical care 2016 PQRS options for individual measures [serial online]. vol Version 10.0. http://www.acr.org/%20~/media/ACR/Documents/P4P/2016%20PQRS/DX/2016_PQRS_Measure_405_11_17_2015.pdf. Accessed 24 Aug 2016
  67. PQRSPRO (2016) PQRS Measure #406: appropriate follow-up imaging for incidental thyroid nodules in patients. pqrspro.com: Healthmonix [cited 24 Aug 2016]. https://www.pqrspro.com/cmsmeasures//appropriate_follow-up_imaging_for_incidental_thyroid_nodules_in_patients
  68. Reed MH (2015) Evidence for diagnostic imaging guidelines. J Am Coll Radiol 12(4):325–326CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Remedios D et al (2015) Clinical imaging guidelines part 1: a proposal for uniform methodology. J Am Coll Radiol 12(1):45–50CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Rosenkrantz AB, Kierans AS (2014) US of incidental adnexal cysts: adherence of radiologists to the 2010 Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound guidelines. Radiology 271(1):262–271CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Schunemann HJ et al (2008) Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations for diagnostic tests and strategies. BMJ 336(7653):1106–1110CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  72. Sebastian S et al (2013) Managing incidental findings on abdominal and pelvic CT and MRI, part 4: white paper of the ACR Incidental Findings Committee II on gallbladder and biliary findings. J Am Coll Radiol 10(12):953–956CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. Silverman SG et al (2008) Management of the incidental renal mass. Radiology 249(1):16–31CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. Sistrom CL et al (2009) Recommendations for additional imaging in radiology reports: multifactorial analysis of 5.9 million examinations. Radiology 253(2):453–461CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. Smith-Bindman R, Miglioretti DL, Larson EB (2008) Rising use of diagnostic medical imaging in a large integrated health system. Health Aff (Millwood) 27(6):1491–1502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Song JH, Beland MD, Mayo-Smith WW (2012) Incidental clinically important extraurinary findings at MDCT urography for hematuria evaluation: prevalence in 1209 consecutive examinations. Am J Roentgenol 199(3):616–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Sosnouski D et al (2007) Extracardiac findings at cardiac CT: a practical approach. J Thorac Imaging 22(1):77–85CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. Truog RD (2012) Patients and doctors—evolution of a relationship. N Engl J Med 366(7):581–585CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. Tufano RP, Noureldine SI, Angelos P (2015) Ethical responsibilities of caring for patients with incidental thyroid nodules. Thyroid 25(5):467–468CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. Veerappan GR et al (2010) Extracolonic findings on CT colonography increases yield of colorectal cancer screening. Am J Roentgenol 195(3):677–686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Volk ML, Ubel PA (2011) Better off not knowing: improving clinical care by limiting physician access to unsolicited diagnostic information. Arch Intern Med 171(6):487–488CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  82. Welch HG (2011) We stumble onto incidentalomas that might be cancer, in overdiagnosed: making people sick in the pursuit of health. Beacon Press, Boston, MA, pp 90–101Google Scholar
  83. Woolf SH et al (1999) Clinical guidelines: potential benefits, limitations, and harms of clinical guidelines. BMJ 318(7182):527–530CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  84. Xiong T et al (2005) Incidental lesions found on CT colonography: their nature and frequency. Br J Radiol 78(925):22–29CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. Xiong T et al (2006) Resources and costs associated with incidental extracolonic findings from CT colonogaphy: a study in a symptomatic population. Br J Radiol 79(948):948–961CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. Yee J et al (2010) Extracolonic findings at CT colonography. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 20(2):305–322CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. Zuiderent-Jerak T, Forland F, Macbeth F (2012) Guidelines should reflect all knowledge, not just clinical trials. BMJ 345:e6702CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologyUniversity of Alabama at BirminghamBirminghamUSA
  2. 2.Chair, ACR Body Imaging Commission Professor Emeritus, Department of RadiologyUniversity of Alabama at BirminghamBirminghamUSA

Personalised recommendations