Successfully reported this slideshow.

ACC-Structured Reporting-FINAL.ppt

702 views

Published on

  • Be the first to comment

ACC-Structured Reporting-FINAL.ppt

  1. 1. MITA Medical Imaging and Technology Alliance November 27, 2007 <ul><li>STRUCTURED REPORTING </li></ul><ul><li>A Critical Need in Cardiac Imaging </li></ul><ul><li>Robert C. Hendel, M.D., F.A.C.C. </li></ul><ul><li>Clinical Cardiologist </li></ul><ul><li>Midwest Heart Specialists </li></ul><ul><li>Fox River Grove, Illinois </li></ul><ul><li>Chairman, ACCF/UHC SPECT MPI Appropriateness Criteria Evaluation Pilot Study </li></ul><ul><li>Member, Working Group for ACC Appropriateness Criteria </li></ul><ul><li>Co-Chairman, Quality in Imaging Task Force of the Cardiovascular Imaging Collaborative, ACC </li></ul>
  2. 2. WHY DO WE NEED QUALITY-BASED IMAGING INITIATIVES? <ul><ul><ul><li>Marked growth in procedural volume, cost </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Inconsistent use </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Inadequate definition of “quality in imaging” </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Poor quality imaging can do harm </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Limited evidence of impact on outcome </li></ul></ul></ul>
  3. 3. AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY Imaging Initiatives <ul><li>Cardiovascular Imaging Consortium (CVIC) </li></ul><ul><li>Duke/ACC Think Tank I and II </li></ul><ul><li>ACC/AHA guidelines </li></ul><ul><li>Appropriateness criteria </li></ul><ul><li>Evaluation of imaging appropriateness (“Pilot”) </li></ul><ul><li>ACC/AHA data standards for imaging </li></ul><ul><li>NCDR imaging registry </li></ul><ul><li>Integration with other key ACC committees </li></ul><ul><ul><li>PAR3 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Advocacy </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>QSDC </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>BOT </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Collaboration with other organizations </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Subspeciality societies, radiology organizations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Participation with AQA </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Alliance with ICA </li></ul></ul>
  4. 4. DIMENSIONS OF CV IMAGING QUALITY January 30, 2006 - February 1, 2006 Pamela Douglas Linda Gillam Harlan Krumholz Robert Hendel Ami Iskandrian Jamie Jollis Eric Peterson Duke-ACC Think Tank
  5. 5. QUALITY METRICS FOR MEDICAL IMAGING <ul><li>Appropriateness </li></ul><ul><li>Structure </li></ul><ul><li>Process (timeliness, pt-centered) </li></ul><ul><li>Reproducibility </li></ul><ul><li>Reproducibility </li></ul><ul><li>Accuracy </li></ul><ul><li>Sensitivity </li></ul><ul><li>Specificity </li></ul><ul><li>Timeliness </li></ul><ul><li>Interpretability </li></ul><ul><li>Clinical integration </li></ul>JACC, Nov 6, 2006
  6. 6. WHY APPROPRIATENESS? Right Test, Right Patient, Right Time <ul><li>Unprecedented focus on assessment and improving quality </li></ul><ul><li>Explosive growth of CV imaging </li></ul><ul><li>Substantial regional variation </li></ul><ul><li>True nature of utilization unknown </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Overuse/ Under-use/Appropriate </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Clinicians, patients, and especially payers seeking guidance </li></ul>
  7. 7. APPROPRIATENESS CRITERIA The ACC Queue <ul><li>Nuclear cardiology (SPECT) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>October, 2005 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Cardiac CT/CMR </li></ul><ul><ul><li>September, 2006 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Echocardiography (TTE, TEE) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>July, 2007 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Echocardiography (Stress) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Fall/Winter, 2007 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Percutaneous coronary intervention </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Winter, 2007-8 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>CV imaging cross modality (efficiency) evaluation </li></ul><ul><li>Revised SPECT Criteria </li></ul>
  8. 8. PILOT PROJECT FOR THE EVALUATION OF APPROPRIATENESS IN SPECT IMAGING PROJECT GOALS <ul><li>Quality improvement </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Effective patient care </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Efficient care </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Assess validity of appropriateness criteria </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Provide data for revisions/updates </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Determine threshold levels of performance </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Assess practice patterns </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Feedback to practice & individual physician </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Identify areas for improvement </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Analysis of decision making </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Correlation of level of appropriateness and image findings/patient outcome </li></ul></ul>
  9. 9. SPECT AC EVALUATION PILOT <ul><li>Data collection </li></ul><ul><li>paper form </li></ul>
  10. 10. IMPLEMENTING CV IMAGING QUALITY October 8-10, 2007 Pamela Douglas Linda Gillam Greg Hundley Robert Hendel Fred Masoudi Manesh Patel Eric Peterson Duke-ACC Think Tank
  11. 11. Duke-ACC Think Tank Broad Stakeholder Representation <ul><li>Professional societies </li></ul><ul><li>Academics - ‘quality mafia’ </li></ul><ul><li>Government- CMS, FDA, NHLBI, VA </li></ul><ul><li>Payers- UHC, Aetna </li></ul><ul><li>Accrediting organizations- IAC, IHE </li></ul><ul><li>Industry </li></ul><ul><li>We acknowledge ‘special interests’ </li></ul>
  12. 12. <ul><li>Critical issues </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Creation, Endorsement, Dissemination </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Supporting tools, Compatibility </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Universal implementation </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Industry and societies must work together </li></ul><ul><ul><li>ACC/Societies to endorse mandatory use </li></ul></ul>DUKE-ACC THINK TANK - II Implementing Cardiovascular Imaging Quality October 8-10, 2007 <ul><ul><ul><li>DATA STANDARDS AND REPORTING </li></ul></ul></ul>
  13. 13. DUKE-ACC THINK TANK - II Implementing Cardiovascular Imaging Quality October 8-10, 2007 <ul><ul><ul><li>Data elements and standards </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>In progress, anticipated completion 12/07 </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Structured reporting </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Collaboration with equipment manufactures and software vendors </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Recommend mandatory use by 2010 (?) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Imaging databases and registries </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Proposal for feasibility of imaging registry completed </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Integration with other registries </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Potential to provide true outcome data </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>DATA STANDARDS AND REPORTING </li></ul></ul></ul>
  14. 14. <ul><li>IMAGING REGISTRY PRINCIPLES </li></ul><ul><li>Ultimate goal; May be needed for reimbursement </li></ul><ul><li>Data elements embedded in software </li></ul><ul><li>Central certification </li></ul><ul><li>Interface with disease and procedural registries </li></ul><ul><li>Claims data for outcomes </li></ul><ul><li>?? Workflow </li></ul><ul><li>?? Business model </li></ul>DUKE-ACC THINK TANK - II Implementing Cardiovascular Imaging Quality October 8-10, 2007
  15. 15. N ational C ardioVascular D ata R egistry 1998….. 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 beyond CathPCI Registry ICD Registry CARE Registry ACTION Registry IC3 CAD Imaging Registry HF Registry PracMgt Registry PAD Registry EP Registry Ped. Registry Congenital Registry Building a true… ICD Long Achieve NCDR is… Physicians Leading the Effort To Quantify Quality
  16. 16. A PROPOSAL (1) <ul><li>Using data standardization and structured reporting, facilitate the design, creation, implementation, dissemination of resources supporting imaging quality </li></ul><ul><li>Examine the possible integration of structured reporting into a national cardiac imaging registry </li></ul>
  17. 17. A PROPOSAL (2) <ul><li>Create working group of industry and MD/society leadership </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Industry leaders: Technical, marketing, Decision makers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>PACS, reporting, IT, equipment, IHE/DICOM, NEMA/MITA </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>MD/societal leadership </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>ACC, ASNC, ASE, SCMR, SCCT, ACR </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Develop resources, potentially include branded commercial products </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Reporting software, educational materials, etc. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Capable of supporting QA and QI efforts (appropriateness criteria evaluation, lab accreditation and imaging and other registries) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Explore funding challenges and opportunities </li></ul><ul><li>Advocate for use of structured reporting and registry data to improve the evidence base supporting the value of CV imaging </li></ul>
  18. 18. A PROPOSAL (3) <ul><li>Initial steps </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Kick off meeting in winter ‘08 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Review of lessons learned from DICOM and IHE regarding collaboration, consensus </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Evaluate economic potential including branded/accredited products </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Discussion with NCDR regarding registry integration </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Project plan, timeline and budget </li></ul></ul>
  19. 19. QUALITY IN CARDIAC IMAGING Conclusions <ul><li>A critical ACC priority </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Large allocation of resources (“Think Tank”, data standards, appropriateness criteria, evaluation pilot, registry development) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Data standards  structured reporting  EMR/PHR  databases/registries </li></ul><ul><li>Collaboration with MITA/NEMA, IHE/DICOM, allied societies, and industry to develop structured reporting and image registry. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Same audience, same market </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Overall goal of improving patients outcomes with a consciousness of cost </li></ul>

×