Evaluation of pulmonary embolism in the emergency department and consistency with a national quality measure: quantifying the opportunity for improvement.

BACKGROUND The National Quality Forum (NQF) has endorsed a performance measure designed to increase imaging efficiency for the evaluation of pulmonary embolism (PE) in the emergency department (ED). To our knowledge, no published data have examined the effect of patient-level predictors on performance. METHODS To quantify the prevalence of avoidable imaging in ED patients with suspected PE, we performed a prospective, multicenter observational study of ED patients evaluated for PE from 2004 through 2007 at 11 US EDs. Adult patients tested for PE were enrolled, with data collected in a standardized instrument. The primary outcome was the proportion of imaging that was potentially avoidable according to the NQF measure. Avoidable imaging was defined as imaging in a patient with low pretest probability for PE, who either did not have a D-dimer test ordered or who had a negative D-dimer test result. We performed subanalyses testing alternative pretest probability cutoffs and imaging definitions on measure performance as well as a secondary analysis to identify factors associated with inappropriate imaging. χ(2) Test was used for bivariate analysis of categorical variables and multivariable logistic regression for the secondary analysis. RESULTS We enrolled 5940 patients, of whom 4113 (69%) had low pretest probability of PE. Imaging was performed in 2238 low-risk patients (38%), of whom 811 had no D-dimer testing, and 394 had negative D-dimer test results. Imaging was avoidable, according to the NQF measure, in 1205 patients (32%; 95% CI, 31%-34%). Avoidable imaging owing to not ordering a D-dimer test was associated with age (odds ratio [OR], 1.15 per decade; 95% CI, 1.10-1.21). Avoidable imaging owing to imaging after a negative D-dimer test result was associated with inactive malignant disease (OR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.11-2.49). CONCLUSIONS One-third of imaging performed for suspected PE may be categorized as avoidable. Improving adherence to established diagnostic protocols is likely to result in significantly fewer patients receiving unnecessary irradiation and substantial savings.

[1]  S. Silvers,et al.  Critical issues in the evaluation and management of adult patients presenting to the emergency department with suspected pulmonary embolism. , 2011, Annals of emergency medicine.

[2]  Julius Cuong Pham,et al.  Use of advanced radiology during visits to US emergency departments for injury-related conditions, 1998-2007. , 2010, JAMA.

[3]  R. Niska,et al.  National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 2007 emergency department summary. , 2010, National health statistics reports.

[4]  C. Camargo,et al.  Factors associated with positive D-dimer results in patients evaluated for pulmonary embolism. , 2010, Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

[5]  J. Kline,et al.  Clinical features from the history and physical examination that predict the presence or absence of pulmonary embolism in symptomatic emergency department patients: results of a prospective, multicenter study. , 2010, Annals of emergency medicine.

[6]  Jesse M. Pines,et al.  Trends in the Rates of Radiography Use and Important Diagnoses in Emergency Department Patients With Abdominal Pain , 2009, Medical care.

[7]  William W Mayo-Smith,et al.  Do emergency physicians use serum D-dimer effectively to determine the need for CT when evaluating patients for pulmonary embolism? Review of 5,344 consecutive patients. , 2009, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[8]  L. Tanoue.  Computed Tomography — An Increasing Source of Radiation Exposure , 2009 .

[9]  Piotr Pruszczyk,et al.  Guidelines on the Diagnosis and Management of Acute Pulmonary Embolism , 2008 .

[10]  M. Gosselin,et al.  CT angiography in the evaluation of acute pulmonary embolus. , 2008, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[11]  J. Kline,et al.  Prospective multicenter evaluation of the pulmonary embolism rule‐out criteria , 2008, Journal of thrombosis and haemostasis : JTH.

[12]  A. Einstein,et al.  Estimating risk of cancer associated with radiation exposure from 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography. , 2007, JAMA.

[13]  J. Kline,et al.  Contrast nephropathy following computed tomography angiography of the chest for pulmonary embolism in the emergency department , 2007, Journal of thrombosis and haemostasis : JTH.

[14]  J. Kline,et al.  Emergency medicine practitioner knowledge and use of decision rules for the evaluation of patients with suspected pulmonary embolism: variations by practice setting and training level. , 2007, Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

[15]  T. Ptak,et al.  A highly sensitive ELISA D-dimer increases testing but not diagnosis of pulmonary embolism. , 2006, Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

[16]  William B. Webb,et al.  Prospective study of clinician-entered research data in the Emergency Department using an Internet-based system after the HIPAA Privacy Rule , 2004, BMC Medical Informatics Decis. Mak..

[17]  William A Ghali,et al.  d-Dimer for the Exclusion of Acute Venous Thrombosis and Pulmonary Embolism , 2004, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[18]  G. Kovacs,et al.  Excluding Pulmonary Embolism at the Bedside without Diagnostic Imaging: Management of Patients with Suspected Pulmonary Embolism Presenting to the Emergency Department by Using a Simple Clinical Model and d-dimer , 2001, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[19]  M Gent,et al.  Derivation of a Simple Clinical Model to Categorize Patients Probability of Pulmonary Embolism: Increasing the Models Utility with the SimpliRED D-dimer , 2000, Thrombosis and Haemostasis.