[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 34.238.248.103. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
1.
Hart  LG, Deyo  RA, Cherkin  DC.  Physician office visits for low back pain: frequency, clinical evaluation, and treatment patterns from a US national survey.   Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1995;20(1):11-19. doi:10.1097/00007632-199501000-00003 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Martin  BI, Deyo  RA, Mirza  SK,  et al.  Expenditures and health status among adults with back and neck problems.   JAMA. 2008;299(6):656-664. doi:10.1001/jama.299.6.656 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Davis  MA, Onega  T, Weeks  WB, Lurie  JD.  Where the United States spends its spine dollars: expenditures on different ambulatory services for the management of back and neck conditions.   Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37(19):1693-1701. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182541f45PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Dagenais  S, Galloway  EK, Roffey  DM.  A systematic review of diagnostic imaging use for low back pain in the United States.   Spine J. 2014;14(6):1036-1048. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2013.10.031 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Di Iorio  D, Henley  E, Doughty  A.  A survey of primary care physician practice patterns and adherence to acute low back problem guidelines.   Arch Fam Med. 2000;9(10):1015-1021. doi:10.1001/archfami.9.10.1015 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Ivanova  JI, Birnbaum  HG, Schiller  M, Kantor  E, Johnstone  BM, Swindle  RW.  Real-world practice patterns, health-care utilization, and costs in patients with low back pain: the long road to guideline-concordant care.   Spine J. 2011;11(7):622-632. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2011.03.017 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Chou  R, Qaseem  A, Snow  V,  et al; Clinical Efficacy Assessment Subcommittee of the American College of Physicians; American College of Physicians; American Pain Society Low Back Pain Guidelines Panel.  Diagnosis and treatment of low back pain: a joint clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians and the American Pain Society.   Ann Intern Med. 2007;147(7):478-491. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-147-7-200710020-00006 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Lehnert  BE, Bree  RL.  Analysis of appropriateness of outpatient CT and MRI referred from primary care clinics at an academic medical center: how critical is the need for improved decision support?   J Am Coll Radiol. 2010;7(3):192-197. doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2009.11.010 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Picano  E.  Sustainability of medical imaging.   BMJ. 2004;328(7439):578-580. doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7439.578 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Rao  JK, Kroenke  K, Mihaliak  KA, Eckert  GJ, Weinberger  M.  Can guidelines impact the ordering of magnetic resonance imaging studies by primary care providers for low back pain?   Am J Manag Care. 2002;8(1):27-35.PubMedGoogle Scholar
11.
Emery  DJ, Shojania  KG, Forster  AJ, Mojaverian  N, Feasby  TE.  Overuse of magnetic resonance imaging.   JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(9):823-825. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.3804 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Fritz  JM, Brennan  GP, Hunter  SJ.  Physical therapy or advanced imaging as first management strategy following a new consultation for low back pain in primary care: associations with future health care utilization and charges.   Health Serv Res. 2015;50(6):1927-1940. doi:10.1111/1475-6773.12301 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Chou  R, Deyo  RA, Jarvik  JG.  Appropriate use of lumbar imaging for evaluation of low back pain.   Radiol Clin North Am. 2012;50(4):569-585. doi:10.1016/j.rcl.2012.04.005 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Chou  R, Fu  R, Carrino  JA, Deyo  RA.  Imaging strategies for low-back pain: systematic review and meta-analysis.   Lancet. 2009;373(9662):463-472. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60172-0 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Lurie  JD, Birkmeyer  NJ, Weinstein  JN.  Rates of advanced spinal imaging and spine surgery.   Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003;28(6):616-620. doi:10.1097/01.BRS.0000049927.37696.DC PubMedGoogle Scholar
16.
Webster  BS, Cifuentes  M.  Relationship of early magnetic resonance imaging for work-related acute low back pain with disability and medical utilization outcomes.   J Occup Environ Med. 2010;52(9):900-907. doi:10.1097/JOM.0b013e3181ef7e53 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Ip  IK, Lacson  R, Hentel  K,  et al.  JOURNAL CLUB: predictors of provider response to clinical decision support: lessons learned from the Medicare Imaging Demonstration.   AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017;208(2):351-357. doi:10.2214/AJR.16.16373 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
US Department of Health and Human Services.  Medicare Program; Revisions to Payment Policies Under the Physician Fee Schedule and Other Revisions to Part B for CY 2019; Medicare Shared Savings Program Requirements; Quality Payment Program; and Medicaid Promoting Interoperability Program.   Fed Regist. 2018;83(145):35704-36368.Google Scholar
19.
Isaac  T, Weissman  JS, Davis  RB,  et al.  Overrides of medication alerts in ambulatory care.   Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(3):305-311. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2008.551 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
Ash  JS, Sittig  DF, Dykstra  R, Campbell  E, Guappone  K.  The unintended consequences of computerized provider order entry: findings from a mixed methods exploration.   Int J Med Inform. 2009;78(suppl 1):S69-S76. doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2008.07.015 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
The Lewin Group.  MRI Lumbar Spine for Low Back Pain (OP-8) Comprehensive Reevaluation Report. Yale-New Haven Health Services Corporation/Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation; 2016.
22.
Gold  R, Esterberg  E, Hollombe  C,  et al.  Low back imaging when not indicated: a descriptive cross-system analysis.   Perm J. 2016;20(2):25-33. doi:10.7812/TPP/15-081 PubMedGoogle Scholar
23.
Sinnott  PL, Siroka  AM, Shane  AC, Trafton  JA, Wagner  TH.  Identifying neck and back pain in administrative data: defining the right cohort.   Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37(10):860-874. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182376508 PubMedGoogle Scholar
24.
Tan  G, Jensen  MP, Thornby  JI, Rintala  DH, Anderson  KO.  Categorizing pain in patients seen in a veterans health administration hospital: Pain as the fifth vital sign.   Psychol Serv. 2008;5(3):239. doi:10.1037/1541-1559.5.3.239Google Scholar
25.
DeLong  ER, DeLong  DM, Clarke-Pearson  DL.  Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach.   Biometrics. 1988;44(3):837-845. doi:10.2307/2531595 PubMedGoogle Scholar
26.
Hall  BL, Huffman  KM, Hamilton  BH,  et al.  Profiling individual surgeon performance using information from a high-quality clinical registry: opportunities and limitations.   J Am Coll Surg. 2015;221(5):901-913. doi:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2015.07.454 PubMedGoogle Scholar
27.
Hashmi  ZG, Dimick  JB, Efron  DT,  et al.  Reliability adjustment: a necessity for trauma center ranking and benchmarking.   J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2013;75(1):166-172. doi:10.1097/TA.0b013e318298494f PubMedGoogle Scholar
28.
Hess  CN, Rao  SV, McCoy  LA,  et al.  Identification of hospital outliers in bleeding complications after percutaneous coronary intervention.   Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2015;8(1):15-22. doi:10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.113.000749 PubMedGoogle Scholar
29.
Krell  RW, Hozain  A, Kao  LS, Dimick  JB.  Reliability of risk-adjusted outcomes for profiling hospital surgical quality.   JAMA Surg. 2014;149(5):467-474. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2013.4249 PubMedGoogle Scholar
30.
Manda  SO, Gale  CP, Hall  AS, Gilthorpe  MS.  Statistical profiling of hospital performance using acute coronary syndrome mortality.   Cardiovasc J Afr. 2012;23(10):546-551. doi:10.5830/CVJA-2011-064 PubMedGoogle Scholar
31.
Dimick  JB, Staiger  DO, Birkmeyer  JD.  Ranking hospitals on surgical mortality: the importance of reliability adjustment.   Health Serv Res. 2010;45(6 Pt 1):1614-1629. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6773.2010.01158.x PubMedGoogle Scholar
32.
Glance  LG, Dick  A, Osler  TM, Li  Y, Mukamel  DB.  Impact of changing the statistical methodology on hospital and surgeon ranking: the case of the New York State cardiac surgery report card.   Med Care. 2006;44(4):311-319. doi:10.1097/01.mlr.0000204106.64619.2a PubMedGoogle Scholar
33.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Quality Indicator Empirical Methods. Accessed June 9, 2020. https://www.qualityindicators.ahrq.gov/Downloads/Resources/Publications/2019/Empirical_Methods_2019.pdf
34.
Morris  C.  Parametric empirical bayes inference: theory and applications.   J Am Stat Assoc. 1983;78(381):47-55. doi:10.1080/01621459.1983.10477920Google Scholar
35.
Snijders  T, Bosker  R.  Multilevel Analysis: An Introduction to Basic and Advanced Multilevel Modelilng. 2nd ed. Sage Publications; 2012.
36.
Kouri  BE, Parsons  RG, Alpert  HR.  Physician self-referral for diagnostic imaging: review of the empiric literature.   AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002;179(4):843-850. doi:10.2214/ajr.179.4.1790843 PubMedGoogle Scholar
37.
Goulet  JL, Brandt  C, Crystal  S,  et al.  Agreement between electronic medical record-based and self-administered pain numeric rating scale: clinical and research implications.   Med Care. 2013;51(3):245-250. doi:10.1097/MLR.0b013e318277f1ad PubMedGoogle Scholar
Limit 200 characters
Limit 25 characters
Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.

Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.

Err on the side of full disclosure.

If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.

Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.

Limit 140 characters
Limit 3600 characters or approximately 600 words
    Views 1,028
    Citations 0
    Original Investigation
    Imaging
    July 13, 2020

    Assessment of Primary Care Clinician Concordance With Guidelines for Use of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Patients With Nonspecific Low Back Pain in the Veterans Affairs Health System

    Author Affiliations
    • 1Veterans Affairs Health Economics Resource Center, VA Palo Alto Health Care System, Menlo Park, California
    • 2Center for Innovation to Implementation, VA Palo Alto Health Care System, Menlo Park, California
    • 3Department of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle
    • 4Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle
    • 5Department of Health Services, University of Washington, Seattle
    • 6Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Informatics, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland
    • 7Department of Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland
    • 8Quantitative Research Unit, Stanford University Medical School, Stanford, California
    JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(7):e2010343. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.10343
    Key Points español 中文 (chinese)

    Question  What are rates of concordance with guidelines for the use of magnetic resonance imaging in patients with nonspecific low back pain among primary care clinicians in the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)?

    Findings  In this cohort study of 1 285 405 primary care visits of 920 547 patients, an early magnetic resonance imaging scan of the lumbar spine was performed in 2.42% of primary care episodes for uncomplicated low back pain in VA primary care clinics.

    Meaning  Results of this study suggest that the use of magnetic resonance imaging in nonspecific low back pain by VA primary care clinicians is lower than rates that have been reported for US patients with commercial insurance.

    Abstract

    Importance  Magnetic responance imaging (MRI) of the lumbar spine that is not concordant with treatment guidelines for low back pain represents an unnecessary cost for US health plans and may be associated with adverse effects. Use of MRI in the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) primary care clinics remains unknown.

    Objective  To assess the use of MRI scans during the first 6 weeks (early MRI scans) of episodes of nonspecific low back pain in VA primary care sites and to determine if historical concordance can identify clinicians and sites that are the least concordant with guidelines.

    Design, Setting, and Participants  Retrospective cohort study of electronic health records from 944 VA primary care sites from the 3 years ending in 2016. Data were analyzed between January 2017 and August 2019. Participants were patients with new episodes of nonspecific low back pain and the primary care clinicians responsible for their care.

    Exposures  MRI scans.

    Main Outcomes and Measures  The proportion of early MRI scans at VA primary care clinics was assessed. Clinician concordance with published guidelines over 2 years was used to select clinicians expected to have low concordance in a third year.

    Results  A total of 1 285 405 new episodes of nonspecific low back pain from 920 547 patients (mean [SD] age, 56.7 [15.8] years; 93.6% men) were attributed to 9098 clinicians (mean [SD] age, 52.1 [10.1] years; 55.7% women). An early MRI scan of the lumbar spine was performed in 31 132 of the episodes (2.42%; 95% CI, 2.40%-2.45%). Historical concordance was better than a random draw in selecting the 10% of clinicians who were subsequently the least concordant with published guidelines. For primary care clinicians, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.683 (95% CI, 0.658-0.701). For primary care sites, the area was under this curve was 0.8035 (95% CI, 0.754-0.855). The 10% of clinicians with the least historical concordance were responsible for just 19.2% of the early MRI scans performed in the follow-up year.

    Conclusions and Relevance  VA primary care clinics had low rates of use of early MRI scans. A history of low concordance with imaging guidelines was associated with subsequent low concordance but with limited potential to select clinicians most in need of interventions to implement guidelines.

    ×