American journal of surgery · 2021
Strategies to optimize management of incidental radiographic findings in the primary care setting: A mixed methods study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Talutis Stephanie D, Childs Ellen, Goldman Anna L, Knapp Philip E, Gupta Avneesh, Ferrao Cleopatra, Feeney Timothy, McAneny David, Drake Frederick Thurston
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Incidental adrenal masses (IAMs) are common. Primary care providers (PCPs) are frequently responsible for incidentaloma evaluations. We evaluated whether PCPs view this paradigm effective, barriers faced, and strategies to optimize care delivery.
METHODS: This is a sequential explanatory study, comprised of surveys followed by focus groups of PCPs. Because lung nodules are another type of common incidental finding, we compared PCP views on management of lung nodules to their views on IAMs.
RESULTS: For IAMs, 22.3% of PCPs "always refer" to specialists, but for lung nodules this was 11.5% (p = 0.026). For lung nodules, the most significant barrier was insufficient time/support to longitudinally follow results (69%), but for IAMs it was uncertainty about which tests to order (68%). Fear of litigation was equal (lung = 22.5%, IAMs = 21.3%). Consistent themes regarding the "ideal" system included specific recommendations in radiology reports; automation of orders for follow-up tests; longitudinal tracking tools; streamlined consultations; and decision guides embedded within the electronic health record.
CONCLUSIONS: Respondents are more comfortable with lung nodules than IAMs. Management of "incidentalomas" is within their scope of practice, but the current system can be optimized.
METHODS: This is a sequential explanatory study, comprised of surveys followed by focus groups of PCPs. Because lung nodules are another type of common incidental finding, we compared PCP views on management of lung nodules to their views on IAMs.
RESULTS: For IAMs, 22.3% of PCPs "always refer" to specialists, but for lung nodules this was 11.5% (p = 0.026). For lung nodules, the most significant barrier was insufficient time/support to longitudinally follow results (69%), but for IAMs it was uncertainty about which tests to order (68%). Fear of litigation was equal (lung = 22.5%, IAMs = 21.3%). Consistent themes regarding the "ideal" system included specific recommendations in radiology reports; automation of orders for follow-up tests; longitudinal tracking tools; streamlined consultations; and decision guides embedded within the electronic health record.
CONCLUSIONS: Respondents are more comfortable with lung nodules than IAMs. Management of "incidentalomas" is within their scope of practice, but the current system can be optimized.