Use of an online discussion board to improve diagnostic skills

We have used the “Discussion Board” feature of an online classroom application (Blackboard) to present diagnostic questions for our advanced practice nursing students in their course on differential diagnosis. [See PDF for complete abstract]

First Trimester Screening and its Impact on Uptake of Diagnostic Testing

Introduction: First Trimester Screening (FTS) combines maternal age with fetal nuchal translucency (NT) and maternal analytes to identify pregnancies at an increased risk for Down syndrome and trisomy 18. Though the accuracy of this screening is high, it cannot replace the conclusive accuracy of prenatal diagnostic testing (PDT). Since FTS has been available, a decrease in the number of women who pursue PDT has been observed. This study sought to determine if there has been a significant change in the amount of PDT performed in our clinics, if the type of FTS result affects the patient’s decision regarding PDT, and what the patient’s intentions are regarding PDT. Material and Methods: A database review was performed for the two years prior and the two years after the January 2007 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) guidelines regarding FTS were issued. We compared the number of women who were AMA and the number of women who were AMA and had PDT between those time periods. We also determined the number of positive and negative FTS results, and determined how many of those patients had PDT. Finally, we surveyed our patients and referring physicians to determine: what the patient understands about FTS, what the patient’s intentions are regarding FTS, and how physicians present the option of FTS to their patients. Results: We determined that there was a 19.6% decrease in the amount of PDT performed when we compared the two time periods at our three specified clinics. Many of our patients were against having PDT prior to their genetic counseling session, but after they received genetic counseling, 76% of our population became open to the possibility of having PDT. Conclusion: Similar to previous studies, we determined that there has been a significant decrease in the number of PDT procedures performed at our clinics, which coincides with the release of the January 2007 ACOG statement regarding FTS. While our patients regarded FTS as a way to gain early information about their pregnancy in a non-invasive manner, they also stated they would use their results as a way to aid in their decision regarding PDT.

The performance of human papillomavirus high-risk DNA testing in the screening and diagnostic settings.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the performance of the human papillomavirus high-risk DNA test in patients 30 years and older. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Screening (n=835) and diagnosis (n=518) groups were defined based on prior Papanicolaou smear results as part of a clinical trial for cervical cancer detection. We compared the Hybrid Capture II (HCII) test result with the worst histologic report. We used cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2/3 or worse as the reference of disease. We calculated sensitivities, specificities, positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR+ and LR-), receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, and areas under the ROC curves for the HCII test. We also considered alternative strategies, including Papanicolaou smear, a combination of Papanicolaou smear and the HCII test, a sequence of Papanicolaou smear followed by the HCII test, and a sequence of the HCII test followed by Papanicolaou smear. RESULTS: For the screening group, the sensitivity was 0.69 and the specificity was 0.93; the area under the ROC curve was 0.81. The LR+ and LR- were 10.24 and 0.34, respectively. For the diagnosis group, the sensitivity was 0.88 and the specificity was 0.78; the area under the ROC curve was 0.83. The LR+ and LR- were 4.06 and 0.14, respectively. Sequential testing showed little or no improvement over the combination testing. CONCLUSIONS: The HCII test in the screening group had a greater LR+ for the detection of CIN 2/3 or worse. HCII testing may be an additional screening tool for cervical cancer in women 30 years and older.

Timely follow-up of abnormal diagnostic imaging test results in an outpatient setting: are electronic medical records achieving their potential?

BACKGROUND: Given the fragmentation of outpatient care, timely follow-up of abnormal diagnostic imaging results remains a challenge. We hypothesized that an electronic medical record (EMR) that facilitates the transmission and availability of critical imaging results through either automated notification (alerting) or direct access to the primary report would eliminate this problem. METHODS: We studied critical imaging alert notifications in the outpatient setting of a tertiary care Department of Veterans Affairs facility from November 2007 to June 2008. Tracking software determined whether the alert was acknowledged (ie, health care practitioner/provider [HCP] opened the message for viewing) within 2 weeks of transmission; acknowledged alerts were considered read. We reviewed medical records and contacted HCPs to determine timely follow-up actions (eg, ordering a follow-up test or consultation) within 4 weeks of transmission. Multivariable logistic regression models accounting for clustering effect by HCPs analyzed predictors for 2 outcomes: lack of acknowledgment and lack of timely follow-up. RESULTS: Of 123 638 studies (including radiographs, computed tomographic scans, ultrasonograms, magnetic resonance images, and mammograms), 1196 images (0.97%) generated alerts; 217 (18.1%) of these were unacknowledged. Alerts had a higher risk of being unacknowledged when the ordering HCPs were trainees (odds ratio [OR], 5.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.86-10.89) and when dual-alert (>1 HCP alerted) as opposed to single-alert communication was used (OR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.22-3.36). Timely follow-up was lacking in 92 (7.7% of all alerts) and was similar for acknowledged and unacknowledged alerts (7.3% vs 9.7%; P = .22). Risk for lack of timely follow-up was higher with dual-alert communication (OR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.06-3.48) but lower when additional verbal communication was used by the radiologist (OR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.04-0.38). Nearly all abnormal results lacking timely follow-up at 4 weeks were eventually found to have measurable clinical impact in terms of further diagnostic testing or treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Critical imaging results may not receive timely follow-up actions even when HCPs receive and read results in an advanced, integrated electronic medical record system. A multidisciplinary approach is needed to improve patient safety in this area.