Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Class |
|---|---|
| Prisma Health-Upstate | OTHER |
| Emory University | OTHER |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
The frequency of head computed tomography (CT) imaging for mild head trauma patients has raised safety and cost concerns. Validated clinical decision rules exist in the published literature and on-line sources to guide medical image ordering but are often not used by emergency department (ED) clinicians. Using simulation, we explored whether the presentation of a clinical decision rule (i.e. Canadian CT Head Rule - CCHR), findings from malpractice cases related to clinicians not ordering CT imaging in mild head trauma cases, and estimated patient out-of-pocket cost might influence clinician brain CT ordering. Understanding what type and how information may influence clinical decision making in the ordering advanced medical imaging is important in shaping the optimal design and implementation of related clinical decision support systems.
Multi-center, double-blinded simulation-based randomized controlled trial. Following standardized clinical vignette presentation, clinicians made an initial imaging decision for the patient. This was followed by additional information on decision support rules, malpractice outcome review, and patient cost; each with opportunity to modify their initial order. The malpractice and cost information differed by assigned group to test the any temporal relationship. The simulation closed with a second vignette and an imaging decision.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| LEGAL-COST | Experimental | Clinicians were first presented malpractice case law summary information (which suggests clinician not likely to be sued for not ordering CT scan) then patient out-of-pocket cost information for brain CT image (which provides them insight into what the patient is likely to pay for the test) |
|
| COST-LEGAL | Active Comparator | Clinicians were first presented with patient out-of-pocket cost information for brain CT image (which provides them insight into what the patient is likely to pay for the test) then malpractice case law summary information (which suggests clinician not likely to be sued for not ordering CT scan) |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Simulation-based clinical decision on brain CT ordering | Other | Clinicians asked to make decision on medical imaging for their simulated patient after presentation of clinical case then additional information. At each presentation of new information the clinician may modify their image order. |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| brain CT medical image order | At each decision point clinician asked to decide on which image to order for patient among three choices:
| 30 days |
Not provided
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Ronald W. Gimbel, PHD | Clemson University | Principal Investigator |
Not provided
| PubMed Identifier | Type | Citation | Retractions |
|---|---|---|---|
| 29530029 | Derived | Gimbel RW, Pirrallo RG, Lowe SC, Wright DW, Zhang L, Woo MJ, Fontelo P, Liu F, Connor Z. Effect of clinical decision rules, patient cost and malpractice information on clinician brain CT image ordering: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2018 Mar 12;18(1):20. doi: 10.1186/s12911-018-0602-1. |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Type | Includes Protocol | Includes SAP | Includes ICF | Document Label | Document Date | Document Uploaded Date | Document File Name |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prot | Yes | No | No | Study Protocol | Nov 16, 2016 | Feb 13, 2018 | Prot_000.pdf |
| ICF | No | No | Yes | Informed Consent Form | May 25, 2016 | Feb 13, 2018 | ICF_001.pdf |
| SAP | No | Yes | No | Statistical Analysis Plan | Feb 13, 2018 | Feb 13, 2018 | SAP_002.pdf |
Not provided
Multi-center, double-blinded simulation-based randomized controlled trial
Not provided
Not provided
Electronic web-based simulation study with built-in randomization tool
|