Download PDF
Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 2017; 21(01): 009-016
DOI: 10.1055/s-0036-1597249
Review Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Appropriate Use Criteria in Musculoskeletal Imaging

Jennifer L. Demertzis
1   Division of Musculoskeletal Radiology, Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, St. Louis, Missouri
,
David A. Rubin
1   Division of Musculoskeletal Radiology, Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, St. Louis, Missouri
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
02 March 2017 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

In the United States, health care costs are spiraling upward at an unsustainable rate. Concurrently, medical specialties, legislatures, and the population each recognize the need to prove that current medical practices are effective, measured by outcomes. These forces necessitate a change in radiology's role, from emphasizing interpretation and reporting to maintaining and demonstrating quality and value. An important part of this task involves establishing the appropriateness of imaging tests by application of objective data and expert opinion in an effort to optimize resource utilization and modality selection. We explore the justifications for establishing appropriateness use criteria, various paradigms that have been applied to their creation, inherent limitations of appropriateness rules based on imperfect data, and challenges associated with their widespread implementation and utilization. An appendix of key terms that may be unfamiliar to radiologists is included for future reference.

Keywords

appropriate use criteria - clinical decision support - radiology - quality - value
 

  • References

  • 1 Medicare Payment Advisory Commission. Report to the Congress: Medicare Payment Policy. Washington, DC: MedPAC; 2015
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Hendee WR, Becker GJ, Borgstede JP. , et al. Addressing overutilization in medical imaging. Radiology 2010; 257 (01) 240-245
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Iglehart JK. Health insurers and medical-imaging policy—a work in progress. N Engl J Med 2009; 360 (10) 1030-1037
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Lungren MP, Amrhein TJ, Paxton BE. , et al. Physician self-referral: frequency of negative findings at MR imaging of the knee as a marker of appropriate utilization. Radiology 2013; 269 (03) 810-815
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 U.S. Government Accountability Office. Report to Congressional Requesters: Medicare Physician Payments; Fees Could Better Reflect Efficiencies Achieved When Services Are Provided Together. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Accountability Office; 2009
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Allen Jr B, Donovan WD, McGinty G. , et al. Professional component payment reductions for diagnostic imaging examinations when more than one service is rendered by the same provider in the same session: an analysis of relevant payment policy. J Am Coll Radiol 2011; 8 (09) 610-616
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Lee DW, Duszak Jr R, Hughes DR. Comparative analysis of Medicare spending for medical imaging: sustained dramatic slowdown compared with other services. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2013; 201 (06) 1277-1282
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 The National Academies of Sciences Engineering Medicine. Initial National Priorities for Comparative Effectiveness Research [report brief]. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine; 2009
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Iglehart JK. Prioritizing comparative-effectiveness research—IOM recommendations. N Engl J Med 2009; 361 (04) 325-328
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Pandharipande PV, Gazelle GS. Comparative effectiveness research: what it means for radiology. Radiology 2009; 253 (03) 600-605
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Zafar HM, Mills AM, Khorasani R, Langlotz CP. Clinical decision support for imaging in the era of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. J Am Coll Radiol 2012; 9 (12) 907-18.e5
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Silva III E, McGinty GB, Hughes DR, Duszak Jr R. Traditional payment models in radiology: historical context for ongoing reform. J Am Coll Radiol 2016; 13 (10) 1171-1175
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Sistrom CL. The appropriateness of imaging: a comprehensive conceptual framework. Radiology 2009; 251 (03) 637-649
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Benayoun MD, Allen JW, Lovasik BP, Uriell ML, Spandorfer RM, Holder CA. Utility of computed tomographic imaging of the cervical spine in trauma evaluation of ground-level fall. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2016; 81 (02) 339-344
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Fitch K, Bernstein SJ, Aguilar MD. , et al. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User's Manual. Arlington, VA: RAND; 2001
    Google Scholar
  • 16 American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria ®. Composition of expert panels. October 2015. Available at: http://www.acr.org/∼/media/ACR/Documents/AppCriteria/OrgCompExpertPanel.pdf . Accessed September 8, 2016
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria ®. Topic development process. November 2015 . Available at: http://www.acr.org/∼/media/ACR/Documents/AppCriteria/TopicDevelopmentProcess.pdf . Accessed September 8, 2016
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria ®. Rating round information. April 2015. Available at: http://www.acr.org/∼/media/ACR/Documents/AppCriteria/RatingRoundInfo.pdf . Accessed September 8, 2016
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria ®. Quality and safety. Available at: http://www.acr.org/Quality-Safety/Appropriateness-Criteria . Accessed September 8, 2016
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 American College of Radiology Media Center. News Releases. ACR appropriateness criteria now satisfy federal AUC requirements. June 20, 2016. Available at: http://www.acr.org/About-Us/Media-Center/Press-Releases/2016-Press-Releases/20160620-ACR-Appropriateness-Criteria-Now-Satisfy-Federal-AUC-Requirements . Accessed September 8, 2016
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Agency for Healthcare research and quality. National Guideline Clearinghouse inclusion criteria. June 1, 2014. Available at: https://guideline.gov/help-and-about/summaries/inclusion-criteria . Accessed September 8, 2016
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Agency for Healthcare research and quality. National Guideline Clearinghouse. Available at: https://www.guideline.gov . Accessed September 8, 2016
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation. Choosing Wisely®. . Available at: http://www.choosingwisely.org/patient-resources/ . Accessed September 8, 2016
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation. Choosing Wisely®. Available at: http://www.choosingwisely.org . Accessed September 8, 2016
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Noble PC, Fuller-Lafreniere S, Meftah M, Dwyer MK. Challenges in outcome measurement: discrepancies between patient and provider definitions of success. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2013; 471 (11) 3437-3445
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Knops AM, Legemate DA, Goossens A, Bossuyt PM, Ubbink DT. Decision aids for patients facing a surgical treatment decision: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg 2013; 257 (05) 860-866
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Winters ZE, Benson JR, Pusic AL. A systematic review of the clinical evidence to guide treatment recommendations in breast reconstruction based on patient-reported outcome measures and health-related quality of life. Ann Surg 2010; 252 (06) 929-942
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Levy G, Blachar A, Goldstein L. , et al. Nonradiologist utilization of American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria in a preauthorization center for MRI requests: applicability and effects. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006; 187 (04) 855-858
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Griffith B, Vallee P, Krupp S. , et al. Screening cervical spine CT in the emergency department, phase 3: increasing effectiveness of imaging. J Am Coll Radiol 2014; 11 (02) 139-144
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Rao S, Rao S, Harvey HB, Avery L, Saini S, Prabhakar AM. Low back pain in the emergency department—are the ACR Appropriateness Criteria being followed?. J Am Coll Radiol 2015; 12 (04) 364-369
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Sistrom CL. ; American College of Radiology. In support of the ACR Appropriateness Criteria. J Am Coll Radiol 2008; 5 (05) 630-635 ; discussion 636–637
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Silveira PC, Ip IK, Sumption S, Raja AS, Tajmir S, Khorasani R. Impact of a clinical decision support tool on adherence to the Ottawa Ankle Rules. Am J Emerg Med 2016; 34 (03) 412-418
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Brink JA. Clinical decision-making tools for exam selection, reporting and dose tracking. Pediatr Radiol 2014; 44 (Suppl. 03) 418-421
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Eddy K, Beaton A, Eddy R, Mathieson J. ACR Select identifies inappropriate underutilization of magnetic resonance imaging in British Columbia. Can Assoc Radiol J 2015; 66 (03) 208-211
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 George E, Tsipas S, Wozniak G. , et al. MRI of the knee and shoulder performed before radiography. J Am Coll Radiol 2014; 11 (11) 1053-1058
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Sheng AY, Castro A, Lewiss RE. Awareness, utilization, and education of the ACR Appropriateness Criteria: a review and future directions. J Am Coll Radiol 2016; 13 (02) 131-136
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Kozak B, Webb EM, Khan BK, Orozco NM, Straus CM, Naeger DM. Medical Student Usage of the American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria. Acad Radiol 2015; 22 (12) 1606-1611
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Dym RJ, Burns J, Taragin BH. Appropriateness of imaging studies ordered by emergency medicine residents: results of an online survey. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2013; 201 (04) W619–625
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Stein MW, Frank SJ, Roberts JH, Finkelstein M, Heo M. Integrating the ACR Appropriateness Criteria into the radiology clerkship: comparison of didactic format and group-based learning. J Am Coll Radiol 2016; 13 (05) 566-570
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Retrouvey M, Trace AP, Shaves S. Radiologic knowledge and ordering habits of clinical residents: ACR Appropriateness Criteria awareness and perceptions. J Am Coll Radiol 2016; 13 (06) 725-729
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Logie CI, Smith SE, Nagy P. Evaluation of resident familiarity and utilization of the ACR musculoskeletal study appropriateness criteria in the context of medical decision support. Acad Radiol 2010; 17 (02) 251-254
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Bautista AB, Burgos A, Nickel BJ, Yoon JJ, Tilara AA, Amorosa JK. ; American College of Radiology Appropriateness. Do clinicians use the American College of Radiology Appropriateness criteria in the management of their patients?. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009; 192 (06) 1581-1585
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Tigges S, Sutherland D, Manaster BJ. Do radiologists use the American College of Radiology Musculoskeletal Appropriateness Criteria?. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000; 175 (02) 545-547
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Remedios D, Brink J, Holmberg O. , et al; Members of the IAEA Technical Meetings on Radiation Protection of Patients Through the Development of Appropriateness Criteria in Diagnostic Imaging. Clinical imaging guidelines part 1: a proposal for uniform methodology. J Am Coll Radiol 2015; 12 (01) 45-50
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Parker L, Nazarian LN, Carrino JA. , et al. Musculoskeletal imaging: medicare use, costs, and potential for cost substitution. J Am Coll Radiol 2008; 5 (03) 182-188
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Sheehan SE, Coburn JA, Singh H. , et al. Reducing unnecessary shoulder MRI examinations within a capitated health care system: a potential role for shoulder ultrasound. J Am Coll Radiol 2016; 13 (07) 780-787
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Winchester DE, Wolinsky D, Beyth RJ, Shaw LJ. Discordance between appropriate use criteria for nuclear myocardial perfusion imaging from different specialty societies: a potential concern for health policy. JAMA Cardiol 2016; 1 (02) 207-210
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Schneider E, Zelenka S, Grooff P, Alexa D, Bullen J, Obuchowski NA. Radiology order decision support: examination-indication appropriateness assessed using 2 electronic systems. J Am Coll Radiol 2015; 12 (04) 349-357
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Avoundjian T, Gidwani R, Yao D. , et al. Evaluating two measures of lumbar spine MRI overuse: administrative data versus chart review. J Am Coll Radiol 2016; 13 (09) 1057-1066
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Krampla W, Roesel M, Svoboda K, Nachbagauer A, Gschwantler M, Hruby W. MRI of the knee: how do field strength and radiologist's experience influence diagnostic accuracy and interobserver correlation in assessing chondral and meniscal lesions and the integrity of the anterior cruciate ligament?. Eur Radiol 2009; 19 (06) 1519-1528
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 White LM, Schweitzer ME, Deely DM, Morrison WB. The effect of training and experience on the magnetic resonance imaging interpretation of meniscal tears. Arthroscopy 1997; 13 (02) 224-228
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Lee CI, Khodyakov D, Weidmer BA. , et al. Journal Club: Radiologist's perceptions of computerized decision support: a focus group study from the Medicare imaging demonstration project. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2015; 205 (05) 947-955
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Blackmore CC. Defining quality in radiology. J Am Coll Radiol 2007; 4 (04) 217-223
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Enzmann DR. Radiology's value chain. Radiology 2012; 263 (01) 243-252
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar