Clinician-dependent variations in inappropriate use of myocardial perfusion imaging: Training, specialty, and location

12Citations
Citations of this article
21Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Background. Inappropriate use of myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) may vary depending on the training, specialty, or practice location of the clinician. Methods. We conducted a cross-sectional investigation of consecutive patients who underwent MPI at our Veterans Affairs medical center between December 2010 and July 2011. Characteristics of the MPI ordering clinicians were extracted to investigate any associations with inappropriate use. Results. 582 patients were included, 9.8% were inappropriate. No difference in inappropriate use was observed between cardiology and non-cardiology clinicians (n = 21, 9.5% vs n = 36, 10.0%, P = .83); no difference was noted between nurse practitioners/physician assistants, attending physicians, and housestaff (7.5% vs 11.2% vs 1.8%, P = .06). Comparing inpatient, emergency department and outpatient clinician groups, the difference was null (8.6% vs 6.3% vs 10.1%, P = .75). For most clinician groups, the most common inappropriate indication was an asymptomatic scenario; however, some groups were different: definite acute coronary syndrome for inpatient clinicians and low risk syncope for emergency medicine clinicians. Conclusions. Clinician groups appear to order inappropriate MPI at similar rates, regardless of their training, specialty, or practice location. Differences in the most common type of inappropriate testing suggest that interventions to reduce inappropriate use should be tailored to specific clinician types. © 2014 American Society of Nuclear Cardiology.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Winchester, D. E., Hymas, J., Meral, R., Nguyen, D., Dusaj, R., Shaw, L. J., & Beyth, R. J. (2014). Clinician-dependent variations in inappropriate use of myocardial perfusion imaging: Training, specialty, and location. Journal of Nuclear Cardiology, 21(3), 598–604. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12350-014-9887-3

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free