Topics:

Three imaging studies when a single chest x-ray would have sufficed

Three imaging studies when a single chest x-ray would have sufficed

Linda could not shake the pesky cough and congestion that had settled into her chest. She knew a quick trip to the doctor was the most prudent course of action but this was poor timing on the part of the germs that had inhabited her body. Four months prior, Linda had lost her job and, consequently, her health insurance. Rent, car payment, and student loans loomed large and she knew without having to check her Excel spreadsheet that medical expenses would not fit into her meager budget. A few days later, Linda developed a high fever, shortness of breath, and acute abdominal pain. No longer able to control her symptoms with over-the-counter medications, Linda presented to the emergency department late Tuesday night.

Following a brief physical exam, the emergency room physician ordered a variety of lab tests and diagnostic imaging studies. The studies ordered included: 

• Chest CT with contrast
Indication: shortness of breath, evaluate for pulmonary embolism

• Chest x-ray
Indication: cough

• Abdominal ultrasound
Indication: abdominal pain

As the radiologist on call that night, I first encountered Linda’s case when the order for the chest CT appeared on my queue. The chest CT did not reveal a pulmonary embolus (PE), but did demonstrate consolidation in the right lower lobe of her lung, most suggestive of pneumonia. I cross-referenced this finding with Linda’s lab results and discovered an elevated white blood cell count. These findings, in addition to knowledge of her three-week history of productive cough and fevers, led me to deliver a final impression of the chest CT as “right lower lobe pneumonia, likely infectious.”

Linda’s name appeared a second time on my queue, this time for an ultrasound. I reviewed the images and detected no abnormalities. My interpretation: Unremarkable examination of the abdomen. A few minutes later Linda’s name appeared yet again on my computer screen; this time for a chest radiograph. The chest x-ray revealed a consolidated right lower lobe, similar to the findings noted on the CT performed earlier that night. Impression: Right lower lobe pneumonia.

Linda received three imaging examinations in succession for a common ailment that could easily have been diagnosed by a physical exam and laboratory tests alone. The only imaging examination that was justified at the time of her initial presentation was a chest x-ray, which costs approximately $200. A pulmonary embolism can be a fatal disorder if not detected and treated expeditiously. However, the likelihood of Linda suffering from a pulmonary embolism was quite low given her presenting symptoms. Even the elevated d-dimer, a commonly used blood test to screen for PE, could be accounted for by Linda’s infection and the abdominal pain was likely referred pain from the pneumonia. The chest CT and abdominal ultrasound added $1900 and $800, respectively, to Linda’s final medical bill.

I phoned the ED physician to inquire why he ordered all three studies instead of starting with the more reasonably priced (but just as informative) chest x-ray. He argued that the time pressures faced by his service to evaluate and discharge patients necessitated requesting exams concurrently rather than waiting for results of individual tests. He also lamented the pressure to evaluate for any potentially fatal diagnoses such as pulmonary embolism, however unlikely. I used this opportunity to educate my colleague that Linda’s presenting symptoms did not warrant the multiple studies ordered. A simple chest x-ray would have sufficed.

Unfortunately a culture of defensive medicine exists whereby physicians feel compelled to order numerous and often unnecessary studies to evaluate for unlikely pathologies. The art of the physical exam and utilization of low-cost technology such as radiography are often dismissed in favor of much more costly workups. In a recent article from The New York Times, (“Physician Revives a Dying Art: The Physical,” accessed Oct. 11, 2010) Dr. Abraham Verghese jokes that “a person could show up at the hospital with a finger missing, and doctors would insist on an MRI, a CT scan, and an orthopedic consult to confirm it.” Unfortunately for Linda, her enormous hospital bills are no joking matter.


Dr. Krishnaraj is a clinical fellow in the abdominal imaging and intervention division, department of imaging, at Massachusetts General Hospital/Harvard Medical School. He can be reached at akrishnaraj@partners.org.

How good, and wise, of you to communicate directly to the physician.  And, when you are in the ER as a patient, even the most assertive patient, feeling quite ill, and feeling rather outnumbered, is unlikely to argue.

J R (not verified) @
Working in a mental health facility, patients often receive more studies and lab work than is truly necessary.  The physicians assistants philosophy is that the mentally ill are more likely to sue than people in the ordinary world.  Also, the philosophy is that the patient is going to x-ray for a chest x-ray, let's just get an abdominal series, while we are at it, "just in case".
Dianne Bahn (not verified) @
We all see this situation too commonly. However, we should be careful with our criticism and suggestion that a simple physical exam should suffice. We are not the ones trying to make a diagnosis based on physical exam and lab tests alone. And of course we should keep in mind that we only see the patients that get the imaging studies. Perhaps there are many more that they send home after only a history and physical that we never know about. There are often (but not always) extenuating circumstances that lead to the seemingly unneccessary imaging test. I do wish they would at least wait for the results of the first test before ordering the next.
Dave Snow (not verified) @
Today's ER physician is unconcerned about the cost to the patient.  He wants an answer to a diagnostic problem for which he is ill equipped to solve himself because the art of taking a proper history and doing a physical examination have not been acquired.  He is following an algorythm of symptoms . . . not evaluating a patient with an illness.  "Common things occur commonly" has no meaning in his world where everyone is the worst case ever seen, until proven otherwise.
William Olson (not verified) @
In his way the E.R. physician is right. Unlikely events do occur. You may have to see a thousand or more patients before it does but in the E.R. you will see that many. If you have only one chance to spot it, you have to look for it. You do not have the opportunity, like a family physician, to rule out the more common things first. The next person she sees may not be her personal physician but an attorney. The solution would seem obvious - more family physicians or P.A.s to rule out the common stuff before asking for help, and a system that pays for them when the patient can't, rather than shunting them to the E.R.
Martin Winston (not verified) @
This is also a common problem in chest pain patients  that we see referred for stress testing in the ER "Chest Pain"protocol: they receive a CT to r/o Pulm Emb and Ao dissection, plus Stress Echo for  ischemia. Most have nothing. You can't fault the ER doc. He's busy with several cases pulling him in different directions and cannot devote full attention to each one. Therefore push the "Easy Button" to quickly r/o all life threatening problems so he can go home after shift and sleep soundly. It would be different if malpractice claims had to go before an expert panel before getting to court where lawyers could not use theatrics to con sympathetic and gullible jurors. Also, had in requirement to pay all costs if the suit fails, cap the P & S damages and cut the attorneys %, and you doctors will be able to actually apply clinical judgement to cases without fear. After all, the patient has the problem not the doctor, we do not want our malpractice policies used as life insurance policiies for patients.
Robert Rifkin (not verified) @
I understand the ER doctor because patients sometimes present not classically,and  with 2 or more conditions at the same time even if they are not immunocompromised, that some people say that nowadays Occam's Razor doesnt apply anymore.

From a public health viewpoint, it still makes sense to abide by Occam's Razor. From an individual perspective, the probability of 2 or more simultaneous co-morbidities must be increased by the consequences of missing them.

I'm reminded of a neurologist par-excellence who taught that history and PE ought to give you the diagnosis most of the time. So I was surprised he ordered a head MRI in what looked to me as a case of simple headache. His answer: One MRI is worth a thousand neurologists.
Dennis Allen Fito (not verified) @

This is not exclusive to the U.S> it happens in radiology depts all over the world.

Why was the examinatiuon undertaken in the first place ?

If the request is inappropriate the examination should not be done.

You should empower your radiographers to read the clinical history, talk to the patient and reject requests (NOT ORDERS !!!) for radiographic examinations they believe are unnecessary until the referrer has spoken to a radiologist.

It is too late to complain to referrers once the examination has been done...radiologists have the POWER and the imaging KNOWLEDGE to stop this abuse ...have they got the BALLS is the question ?

 

Stephen LITTLEFAIR (not verified) @
Here we do our share of over ordering things like a CT head for chronic migraines etc. However we do the CXR or Acute Abdomen series first then if it warrants a CT chest or a CT Abd/pelvis. You have to do a CT chest to R/O PE if they have a positive D-Dimer. I guess it is a CYA type of world nowadays.
Kimberly Mathews (not verified) @
Interesting observation by an honest radiologist! The rada in my cmunity Almost Always Recommend additional studies to pad their own incomes- or at least that is the appearance much of the time. Very sad that there are bot more radiologists lime they have at MGH. No wonder the system is broken. Let's fix it without article like this one!
James Smith (not verified) @

Even our radiology colleagues, particularly the "younger" ones than grew up with CT and MR readily available seem to forget the simple and less expensive options.  How often do you see a recommendation for CT of the chest to evaluate a possible pulmonary nodule when a quicker solution may just be fluoroscopy to recognize superimposed densities.

RICK AMERSON (not verified) @
This story is a sad commentary on the quality of medical training today.
What has happened to the ART of medicine.

Take a history, do a cbc and LISTEN to the patients chest with a stethoscope! do you remember what a stethoscope is and what it is used for????

If need be do a cxr to confirm pneumonia. If that is unrevealing, then proceed to ct.

Shame on the er doc for being so lazy and wasteful!!!!!
Steven Hirsh (not verified) @
Click here to close