Effect of Diagnostic Imaging Utilization Reports

NCT ID: NCT02917837

Last Updated: 2021-10-11

Study Results

Results pending

The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

COMPLETED

Clinical Phase

NA

Total Enrollment

192 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2019-11-15

Study Completion Date

2020-12-31

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

Diagnostic imaging (DI) tests (for example, x-ray tests, ultrasounds, CT scans, or MRIs) are used by health care providers to help diagnose patient illness, but decisions regarding when these tests should be ordered are subjective. As a result, some physicians order these tests more than others. Ordering rates between clinicians seeing similar kinds of patients have been shown to be considerably different, suggesting that many of the tests are unnecessary. DI currently accounts for about 6.6% of Canadian hospital budgets, but this percentage may be much higher in Newfoundland where test ordering rates are almost twice the national average. However, cost is not the only concern. Over-testing can lead to further unnecessary testing to follow-up on harmless findings, and in the case of CT, large doses of potentially harmful radiation. We suspect that many clinicians are not aware that they order more DI tests than their peers. We will therefore develop a "report card" for family physicians in the province that shows them how many tests they are ordering compared to other physicians in the region. We expect that physicians who are over-ordering DI tests will reduce the number of tests they order after receiving their report cards. This is a low-cost way to potentially prevent expensive over-ordering of DI tests that can easily be implemented in the province's other health regions and elsewhere. The Quality of Care Newfoundland and Labrador (QCNL) organization in the province currently provides feedback reports and in-person detailing sessions to physicians, but the effectiveness of these interventions has not been studied.

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

The purpose of this trial is to compare the effectiveness of two versions of a DI utilization feedback report for family physicians, and determine whether in-person detailing sessions offer additional benefit in changing ordering practices. Group practices (i.e. all physicians practicing at the same address) of family physicians and general practitioners will be stratified by community of practice within Eastern Health, then randomized into one of four groups: 1. A usual QCNL feedback report alone, 2. A usual QCNL feedback report plus in-person detailing, 3. A new feedback report alone, 4. A new feedback report plus in-person detailing. Communities with fewer than five physicians will be grouped with similar communities for stratified randomization purposes.

Physicians will be provided a semi-annual (every 6 months) report card outlining the number of CT scans, ultrasounds and plain x-rays they ordered per 100 patients for whom they were the primary provider. We will assume that the primary provider is the most frequent biller of primary care services. Participants will receive a link to the report card via email from the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association (NLMA) by a two-step process: The initial email gives a brief description of the report and contains a link which then redirects the clinician to a secure web page that displays the individual clinician diagnostic imaging utilization in a prior one year period compared to the aggregate of their peers in the same region. Physicians in the detailing groups will be contacted to arrange a single in-person session with one of their colleagues to discuss the detailing reports.

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Diagnostic Imaging Utilization

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Allocation Method

RANDOMIZED

Intervention Model

FACTORIAL

Primary Study Purpose

HEALTH_SERVICES_RESEARCH

Blinding Strategy

TRIPLE

Participants Caregivers Outcome Assessors

Study Groups

Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.

Usual QCNL report group

Physicians receive the usual Quality of Care Newfoundland and Labrador utilization report: This reports ranks the physician on a figure of their peers according to the total number of tests ordered in a one-year period.

Group Type ACTIVE_COMPARATOR

Usual QCNL DI utilization report

Intervention Type OTHER

See arm descriptions.

Usual QCNL report plus detailing.

This group receives the usual QCNL report described above. Shortly after the reports are sent, this group will be contacted at least three times to attempt to arrange a single in-person detailing session.

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

Usual QCNL DI utilization report

Intervention Type OTHER

See arm descriptions.

Detailing

Intervention Type OTHER

In-person detailing, usually with a small group of family physicians and a peer (physician) facilitator to discuss the topic over a 30-60 minute period.

New utilization report

This group will receive a new type of report that shows individual physician ordering per 100 patients compared to the mean of all physicians, adjusted for patient complexity (age, sex, comorbidity, education, income, rurality).

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

New DI utilization report

Intervention Type OTHER

See arm descriptions.

New utilization report plus detailing

New type of report plus detailing as described above.

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

New DI utilization report

Intervention Type OTHER

See arm descriptions.

Detailing

Intervention Type OTHER

In-person detailing, usually with a small group of family physicians and a peer (physician) facilitator to discuss the topic over a 30-60 minute period.

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

Usual QCNL DI utilization report

See arm descriptions.

Intervention Type OTHER

New DI utilization report

See arm descriptions.

Intervention Type OTHER

Detailing

In-person detailing, usually with a small group of family physicians and a peer (physician) facilitator to discuss the topic over a 30-60 minute period.

Intervention Type OTHER

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

* 2\) Be the most frequent provider of primary care billings for a minimum of 20 patients during the period.

Exclusion Criteria

* 1\) Physicians who will be within the Eastern Health network for a relatively short period, e.g. clinicians engaged in an exchange program for training, or locums.
Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Yes

Sponsors

Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.

NL SUPPORT Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research

UNKNOWN

Sponsor Role collaborator

Memorial University of Newfoundland

OTHER

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.

Kris Aubrey-Bassler

Associate Professor

Responsibility Role PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Principal Investigators

Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.

Kris Aubrey-Bassler, MD, CCFP(EM)

Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Primary Healthcare Research Unit, Memorial University

Locations

Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.

Health Sciences Centre

St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada

Site Status

Countries

Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.

Canada

References

Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.

Mittal MK, Zorc JJ, Garcia-Espana JF, Shaw KN. An assessment of clinical performance measures for pediatric emergency physicians. Am J Med Qual. 2013 Jan-Feb;28(1):33-9. doi: 10.1177/1062860612443849. Epub 2012 Jun 7.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 22679126 (View on PubMed)

Jain S, Elon LK, Johnson BA, Frank G, Deguzman M. Physician practice variation in the pediatric emergency department and its impact on resource use and quality of care. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2010 Dec;26(12):902-8. doi: 10.1097/PEC.0b013e3181fe9108.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 21088636 (View on PubMed)

Goldzweig CL, Orshansky G, Paige NM, Miake-Lye IM, Beroes JM, Ewing BA, Shekelle PG. Electronic health record-based interventions for improving appropriate diagnostic imaging: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2015 Apr 21;162(8):557-65. doi: 10.7326/M14-2600.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 25894025 (View on PubMed)

Jain S, Frank G, McCormick K, Wu B, Johnson BA. Impact of Physician Scorecards on Emergency Department Resource Use, Quality, and Efficiency. Pediatrics. 2015 Sep;136(3):e670-9. doi: 10.1542/peds.2014-2363. Epub 2015 Aug 10.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 26260722 (View on PubMed)

Schwappach DL, Blaudszun A, Conen D, Ebner H, Eichler K, Hochreutener MA. 'Emerge': Benchmarking of clinical performance and patients' experiences with emergency care in Switzerland. Int J Qual Health Care. 2003 Dec;15(6):473-85. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzg078.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 14660530 (View on PubMed)

Campbell SM, Reeves D, Kontopantelis E, Sibbald B, Roland M. Effects of pay for performance on the quality of primary care in England. N Engl J Med. 2009 Jul 23;361(4):368-78. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa0807651.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 19625717 (View on PubMed)

Campbell S, Reeves D, Kontopantelis E, Middleton E, Sibbald B, Roland M. Quality of primary care in England with the introduction of pay for performance. N Engl J Med. 2007 Jul 12;357(2):181-90. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsr065990. No abstract available.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 17625132 (View on PubMed)

Michie S, Johnston M, Abraham C, Lawton R, Parker D, Walker A; "Psychological Theory" Group. Making psychological theory useful for implementing evidence based practice: a consensus approach. Qual Saf Health Care. 2005 Feb;14(1):26-33. doi: 10.1136/qshc.2004.011155.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 15692000 (View on PubMed)

Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(5):373-83. doi: 10.1016/0021-9681(87)90171-8.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 3558716 (View on PubMed)

Klabunde CN, Harlan LC, Warren JL. Data sources for measuring comorbidity: a comparison of hospital records and medicare claims for cancer patients. Med Care. 2006 Oct;44(10):921-8. doi: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000223480.52713.b9.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 17001263 (View on PubMed)

Other Identifiers

Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.

NLSUPPORT-Aubrey

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id

More Related Trials

Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.

Rapid Examination of Acute CT
NCT06507124 RECRUITING NA
Comparison of CXR and MnDCT
NCT00188435 COMPLETED PHASE1
Photon Counting Detector CT Image Quality
NCT06281808 ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING NA
MR Urography vs CT Urography
NCT02606513 COMPLETED NA