Nonconsent to pulmonary vascular (or advanced) imaging for suspected pulmonary embolism (PE) in pregnancy can delay diagnosis and treatment, increasing risk of adverse outcomes. We sought to understand factors associated with consent and understand outcomes after nonconsent.

This retrospective cohort study was undertaken across 21 community hospitals from October 1, 2021, through March 31, 2023. We included gravid patients undergoing diagnostics for suspected PE who were recommended advanced imaging. The primary outcome was verbal consent to advanced imaging. Diagnostic settings were nonobstetric (99% emergency departments [EDs]) and obstetrics (labor and delivery and outpatient clinics). Using quasi-Poisson regression, we calculated adjusted relative risks (aRRs) of consenting with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We also reported symptom resolution and delayed imaging at follow-up and 90-day PE outcomes.

Imaging was recommended for 405 outpatients: median age was 30.5 years; 50% were in the third trimester. Evaluation was more common in nonobstetric (83%) than obstetric settings (17%). Overall, 314 (78%) agreed to imaging and 91 (22%) declined imaging. Consenting was more prevalent in obstetric settings compared with nonobstetric settings: 99% versus 73% (p < 0.001). When adjusted for demographic and clinical variables, including pretest probability, only obstetric setting was independently associated with consenting: aRR 1.26 (95% CI 1.09-1.44). Seventy-nine (87%) patients declining imaging had 30-day follow-up. Eight of 12 who reported persistent or worsening symptoms on follow-up were again recommended advanced imaging and consented. Imaging was negative. None who initially declined imaging were diagnosed with PE or died within 90 days.

One in five gravid patients suspected of PE declined advanced imaging, more commonly in nonobstetric (principally ED) settings than obstetric settings. Patients symptomatic on follow-up responded favorably to subsequent imaging recommendations without 90-day outcomes. Improving the communication and documentation of informed consent and securing close follow-up for nonconsenters may mitigate risks of missed and delayed PE diagnosis.

Computed tomography pulmonary angiogram and lung scintigraphy with ventilation/perfusion scan are needed to diagnose pulmonary embolism (PE) in pregnancy. Their associated ionizing radiation doses are considered safe in pregnancy. A standardized patient information tool may improve patient counseling and reduce testing hesitancy.

In this context, we sought to address 1) what patients want to know before undergoing these tests and 2) how they want the information to be provided to them.

We used a qualitative descriptive methodology. We recruited pregnant participants at the McGill University Health Center in Montreal, Canada. Structured interviews explored information needs about PE and diagnostic imaging for PE. The interview transcripts' themes were analyzed with a hybrid deductive and inductive approach.

Of 21 individuals approached, 20 consented to participate. Four had been previously investigated for PE. Participants requested information about the risks associated with PE and radiation and their effects on maternal and fetal health. They preferred for radiation doses to be presented in comparison with known radiation thresholds for fetal harm. They suggested that a written tool should be developed using an accessible language. Participants also indicated that the tool would be integrated into their decision-making process, emphasizing a lower risk tolerance for their fetus than for themselves.

This single-center group of pregnant patients wished to be informed about the risks of PE and radiation associated with imaging. A written tool could help put information into context and facilitate decision making. These new insights may be used to inform counseling.

Management of primary headache (PHA) varies across emergency departments (ED), yet there is widespread agreement that computed tomography (CT) scans are overused. This study assessed emergency physicians' (EPs) PHA management and their attitudes towards head CT ordering.

A cross-sectional study was undertaken with EPs from one Canadian center. Drivers of physicians' perceptions regarding the appropriateness of CT ordering for patients with PHA were explored.

A total of 73 EPs (70% males; 48% with <10 years of practice) participated in the study. Most EPs (88%) did not order investigations for moderate-severe primary headaches; however, CT was the common investigation (47%) for headaches that did not improve. Computed tomography ordering was frequently motivated by the need for specialist consultation (64%) or admission (64%). A small proportion (27%) believed patients usually/frequently expected a scan. Nearly half of EPs (48%) identified patient imaging expectations/requests as a barrier to reducing CT ordering. Emergency physicians with CCFP (EM) certification were less likely to perceive CT ordering for patients with PHA as appropriate. Conversely, those who identified the possibility of missing a condition as a major barrier to limiting their CT use were more likely to perceive CT ordering for patients with PHA as appropriate.

Emergency physicians reported consistency and evidence-based medical management. They highlighted the complexities of limiting CT ordering and both their level of training and their perceived barriers for limiting CT ordering seem to be influencing their attitudes. Further studies could elucidate these and other factors influencing their practice.

The overuse of computed tomographic (CT) scans for patients who present to the emergency department (ED) after mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) has been well-documented. The Canadian Computed Tomography Head Rule (CCHR) is a validated tool to guide ED providers in determining the need for emergent CT of mTBI patients. The purpose of this project was to reduce radiation exposure and ED length of stay by using the CCHR to decrease unnecessary CT scans in adults with TBI. Cost of care was also estimated. The CCHR implementation strategy included an education program for ED staff. The use of the CCHR was promoted throughout the intervention period. The outcomes measured were the number of CT scans ordered, ED length of stay, and the cost of avoidable CT scans. Data were collected through medical record reviews completed by the project leader and were evaluated using the independent samples t test. A total of 600 medical records were reviewed. There was a significant difference between adherence to the CCHR before (M = 64.6%) and after provider education (M = 74.3%). The percentage of CT scans that could have been avoided significantly decreased from baseline (M = 0.63) after provider education (M = 0.46). Length of stay for mTBI patients who were managed based on the CCHR (M = 184.9) was significantly less than the length of stay for those who were not (M = 260.1). The cost of avoidable scans was decreased by 37% over the course of the project. There were no incidents of missed diagnosis found. By increasing awareness of the CCHR and promoting its use, the number of head CT scans ordered, cost of care, and ED length of stay for patients who present after mTBI were significantly improved.

This study has developed a relationship that categorized radiation protection and allows for a proper, clear, and concise review of the different classifications in terms of principles of protection, dose criteria, categories, fundamental tools, exposure situations, applications and control measures. With the groundwork laid, advances of the linear no-threshold (LNT) model which has attracted attention in the field of radiobiology and epidemiology were examined in detail. Various plausible dose-response relationship scenarios were x-rayed under low-dose extrapolation. Intensive review of factors opposing the LNT model involving radiophobia (including misdiagnosis, alternative surgery/imaging, suppression of ionizing radiation (IR) research); radiobiology (including DNA damage repair, apoptosis/necrosis, senescence protection) and cost issues (including-high operating cost of LNT, incorrect prioritization, exaggeration of LNT impact, risk-to-benefit analysis) were performed. On the other hand, factors supporting the use of LNT were equally examined, they include regulatory bodies' endorsement, insufficient statistical significance, partial DNA repair, variability of irradiated bodies, different latency periods for cancer, dynamic nature of threshold and conflicting interests. After considering the gaps in the scientific investigations that either support or counter the scientific paradigm on the use of LNT model, further research and advocacy is recommended that will ultimately lead to the acceptance of an alternative paradigm by the international regulators.

Total exposure to ionizing radiation has nearly doubled in the last two decades. This increase is primarily due to increased computed tomography (CT) exposure. Concerns have been raised about the risks associated with patients' exposure to medical imaging radiation, which can increase a person's lifetime risk of developing cancer. Preventing unnecessary examinations becomes critical at this point. To avoid unnecessary examinations, it is necessary to understand the demanding process.

To ascertain clinicians' awareness of and reasons for requesting a CT examination.

We developed an online questionnaire that included 20 questions about clinicians' awareness of radiation safety and their reasons for requesting a CT examination, as well as demographic information such as age, gender, and year of medical practice experience. Additionally, we asked participants the number of CT scans requested in a month, the patients' questions and approaches about the imaging method, the effect of the patient's previous imaging history on the current imaging request, whether they believed that they had sufficient information about radiation doses, and whether they requested CT without an indication. We administered the questionnaire to clinicians from a variety of different professions in four different cities.

A total of 195 clinicians participated. Internal medicine specialists were the most crowded group (38/195, 19.5%). Mean age of the population was 33.66 ± 5.92 years. Mean year of experience was 9.01 ± 5.96. Mean number of requested CT scans in a month was 36.88 ± 5.86. Forty-five (23.1%) participants stated that they requested CT scans without clinical indication. The most common reasons for CT scan requests were work load, fear of malpractice, and patient demand/insistence.

CT scan requests are influenced by a variety of factors, both internal and external to the doctors and patients. Raising awareness of radiation safety and reducing fear of malpractice by limiting the number of patients per physician may result in a reduction in unnecessary CT examinations and ionizing radiation exposure.

ALARA is the acronym for "As Low As Reasonably Achievable." It is a radiation protection concept borne from the linear no-threshold (LNT) hypothesis. There are no valid data today supporting the use of LNT in the low-dose range, so dose as a surrogate for risk in radiological imaging is not appropriate, and therefore, the use of the ALARA concept is obsolete. Continued use of an outdated and erroneous principle unnecessarily constrains medical professionals attempting to deliver high-quality care to patients by leading to a reluctance by doctors to order images, a resistance from patients/parents to receive images, subquality images, repeated imaging, increased radiation exposures, the stifling of low-dose radiation research and treatment, and the propagation of radiophobia and continued endorsement of ALARA by regulatory bodies. All these factors result from the fear of radiogenic cancer, many years in the future, that will not occur. It has been established that the dose threshold for leukemia is higher than previously thought. A low-dose radiation exposure from medical imaging will likely upregulate the body's adaptive protection systems leading to the prevention of future cancers. The ALARA principle, as used as a radiation protection principle throughout medicine, is scientifically defunct and should be abandoned.

To examine the influence of health care provider's communication skills on the quality of care perceived by Emergency Department patients.

Communication between patients and health care providers in the context of Emergency Department is challenging and can potentially have a negative impact on the quality of care perceived by patients.

Cross-sectional descriptive study conducted in the Emergency Department at the University Clinical Hospital Virgen de la Arrixaca of Murcia, Spain.

Data were collected from 6 to 9 June 2016. Different instruments were used to evaluate the perception of patients on the communication skills and quality of care at the Emergency Department.

The sample was composed of 200 patients, with an average age of 44.1 (SD = 18.3), of which 106 (53%) were men. The multiple linear regression analysis showed the association between communication skills (respect, problem solving, and nonverbal communication) and age with the quality of care perceived by the patients.

We found that the communication skills of the health care providers were explanatory variables of the quality of care perceived in an Emergency Department.

The aims of the study were to describe emergency department (ED) management of young children with head injury and to assess parental comfort level and perceptions of ED care.

This was a prospective observational study of children younger than 5 years who presented to a pediatric ED after head injury. Children were eligible if clinical observation was an appropriate ED management option per the Pediatric Emergency Care Academic Research Network's neuroimaging clinical decision rule. Demographics, injury variables, and ED clinician surveys explaining the care provided were collected at time of study enrollment. Parents were subsequently contacted to assess understanding of ED management and comfort with care.

One hundred four children were enrolled with a mean (standard deviation) age of 1.19 (1.34) years. Thirty (29%) had emergent neuroimaging and 59 (57%) were placed into a period of observation per clinician report. A total of 37 children received a head computed tomography, of which 21 (57%) were normal. Eighty-four parents (81%) completed the phone follow-up. Of these children, there was a significant difference between whether parents and clinicians reported that the child had been clinically observed in the ED (P < 0.0001). Parents of children who did not receive a head CT were more likely to be uncomfortable with the decision to obtain neuroimaging compared with those who did receive a head CT (P = 0.003).

Parents are not always comfortable with the medical care practices provided and are often unaware of clinical observation when it does occur. Better parent-clinician communication could improve parental understanding and reduce overall discomfort.

To describe patient perceptions related to CT and evaluate variation related to patient sociodemographic characteristics.

Institutional review board-approved survey of adult patients undergoing outpatient CT at a large academic hospital administered May 2016 to March 2017. The survey included questions about participant demographic and socioeconomic characteristics as well as scales that addressed five perceptual constructs related to their CT examination: knowledge, benefits, barriers, expectations, and trust. Two of these constructs use the Health Belief Model as a conceptual framework, and questions were adapted from the Benefits and Barriers Scale for Screening Mammography. Descriptive statistics were calculated for all variables. Heterogeneous choice models were used to evaluate associations between participant characteristics and the perceptual constructs.

In all, 302 surveys were completed by a diverse patient sample (33% non-Hispanic white, 29% Hispanic or Latino, 24% black, 8% mixed or other race, 5% Asian or Pacific Islander, 2% American Indian or Alaska Native). A large majority of participants responded positively to CT examination perceptions for each item with: high knowledge (71%-97%), positive expectations (94%-98%), high trust (92%) and benefits (67%-93%), and low barriers (only 9%-17% reported). In addition, 26% of participants reported seeking information about the CT before their appointment, with calling their physician's office the most common approach. The heterogeneous choice models found that responses to nearly all of the scale questions did not vary by sociodemographic characteristics, although in a larger sample some associations may be significant.

Among a diverse sample of patients, perceptions of CT examination were highly positive and similar according to sociodemographic characteristics.

Children with congenital or acquired heart disease can be exposed to relatively high lifetime cumulative doses of ionizing radiation from necessary medical imaging procedures including radiography, fluoroscopic procedures including diagnostic and interventional cardiac catheterizations, electrophysiology examinations, cardiac computed tomography (CT) studies, and nuclear cardiology examinations. Despite the clinical necessity of these imaging studies, the related ionizing radiation exposure could pose an increased lifetime attributable cancer risk. The Image Gently "Have-A-Heart" campaign is promoting the appropriate use of medical imaging studies in children with congenital or acquired heart disease while minimizing radiation exposure. The focus of this manuscript is to provide a comprehensive review of radiation dose management and CT performance in children with congenital or acquired heart disease.

"I am not young enough to know everything."Oscar Wilde.

There is insufficient knowledge among providers and patients/caregivers of ionizing radiation exposure from medical imaging examinations. This study used a brief, interactive educational intervention targeting the topics of best imaging practices and radiation safety early in health professions students' training. The authors hypothesized that public health, medical, and physician assistant students who receive early education for imaging appropriateness and radiation safety will undergo a change in attitude and have increased awareness and knowledge of these topics.

The authors conducted a 1.5-hour interactive educational intervention focusing on medical imaging utilization and radiation safety. Students were presented with a pre/postquestionnaire and data were analyzed using t tests and multivariate analysis of variance.

A total of 301 students were enrolled in the study. There was 58% (P < .01) and 85% (P < .01) improvement in attitude and knowledge regarding appropriateness of imaging, respectively. The authors also found an 8% increase (P < .01) in students who thought informed consent should be obtained prior to pediatric computed tomographic imaging. Physical assistant students were more likely than medical students to prefer obtaining informed consent at baseline (P = .03).

A brief educational session provided to health professions students early in their education showed an increased awareness and knowledge of the utility, limitations, and risks associated with medical imaging. Incorporation of a best imagining practice educational session early during medical education may promote more thoughtful imaging decisions for future medical providers.

Computed tomography (CT) is common for trauma victims, but is usually done without informing patients of potential risks or obtaining informed consent.

The objective of this study was to determine the feasibility of two elements (time and normal level of alertness) necessary for informed consent for CT in adult trauma patients.

We conducted this prospective observational, two-phase cohort study at two urban, Level I trauma centers. In the first phase, we determined the median time needed to obtain informed consent for CT by performing sham consent on 11 injured patients at each site. In the second phase, we observed all adult trauma activation cases that presented during specified time blocks and recorded Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) scores and the time available for consent (TAC) for CT-defined as the time between the end of the secondary trauma survey and when the patient left the resuscitation room to go to CT. We defined, a priori, feasible consent cases as those in which the patient had a GCS of 15 and a TAC greater than the median sham consent time at that site.

The median times for sham CT consent at the two sites were 3:36 and 2:09 minutes:seconds (range = 1:12-4:54). Of the 729 trauma patients enrolled during phase II, 646 (89%) had a CT scan, and of these 646 patients, 461 (71.4% [95% confidence interval = 67.8%- 74.7%]) met feasible consent criteria. Of the 185 patients who failed to meet feasible consent criteria, 171 (92.4%) had a GCS < 15, one (0.5%) had a TAC less than the sham consent time, and 13 (7.0%) had both.

We found that informed consent for CT was likely feasible in over two-thirds of acute, adult trauma patients.

Although there is consensus on the fact that ionizing radiation used in radiological examinations can affect health, the stochastic (random) nature of risk makes it difficult to anticipate and assess specific health implications for patients. The issue of radiation protection is peculiar as any dosage received in life is cumulative, the sensitivity to radiation is highly variable from one person to another, and between 20 % and 50 % of radiological examinations appear not to be necessary. In this context, one might reasonably assume that information and patient consent would play an important role in regulating radiological practice. However, there is to date no clear consensus regarding the nature and content of-or even need for-consent by patients exposed to ionizing radiation. While law and ethics support the same principles for respecting the dignity of the person (inviolability and integrity), in the context of radiology practice, they do not provide a consistent message to guide clinical decision-making. This article analyzes the issue of healthcare professionals' duty to inform and obtain patient consent for radiological examinations. Considering that both law and ethics have as one of their aims to protect vulnerable populations, it is important that they begin to give greater attention to issues raised by the use of ionizing radiation in medicine. While the situation in Canada serves as a backdrop for a reflective analysis of the problem, the conclusions are pertinent for professional practice in other jurisdictions because the principles underlying health law and jurisprudence are fairly general.

Understanding the basic qualities of communication between emergency physicians and patients could improve communication in the emergency department.

The objectives of this scoping review are to map the literature about the gaps in communication between emergency physicians and patients in the emergency department and make recommendations for further research.

A scoping review of literature published since 1980 and written in English was undertaken using the following databases: Pubmed, Scopus, and SocINDEX. The articles were searched for using two-keyword combinations of the following keywords joined by "AND": "communication," "patient," "emergency physician," "emergency department/emergency room/accident," and "emergency room." Seventeen articles were included in the final review.

Five research issues were covered by the 17 papers: patient-centered communication, information sharing, bad news delivery, shared decision making, and physicians' perspectives on communication. Emergency physicians have several communication characteristics: doctor-driven decision making, focusing on efficient information gathering, immature communication techniques, and obstacles to overcoming miscommunication. Patients also have several communication characteristics: active participation in medical encounters, expectation of physician as a reliable guide, understanding physicians' difficulties, and factors that contribute to understanding.

Several conclusions about emergency department communication between patients and emergency physicians were drawn. Additional research is required to consider diverse patient needs in the emergency department. Furthermore, training programs for emergency physicians to improve the quality of communication should be developed and implemented in line with our research findings.

The past decade has brought increasing coverage in the medical literature and lay media of the potential association between low-level radiation from diagnostic imaging and an increased lifetime cancer risk. Both physician and public opinion increasingly favour a greater discussion of benefit and risk with patients and their families when such imaging is being considered. Particular attention has been directed towards CT, its use in children and the emergency department setting. We will review the evolution of radiation dose awareness and knowledge among emergency physicians (EPs) alongside the parallel increase in public awareness. We will then discuss expectations for risk disclosure and the challenges faced by EPs and radiologists as we strive to provide this in a clinically balanced and meaningful way.

Displaying radiation exposure and cost information at electronic order entry may encourage clinicians to consider the value of diagnostic imaging.

An urban safety-net health system displayed radiation exposure information for CT and cost information for CT, MRI and ultrasound on an electronic referral system for outpatient ordering. We assessed whether there were differences in numbers of outpatient CT scans and MRIs per month relative to ultrasounds before and after the intervention, and evaluated primary care clinicians' responses to the intervention.

There were 23 171 outpatient CTs, 15 052 MRIs and 43 266 ultrasounds from 2011 to 2014. The ratio of CTs to ultrasounds decreased by 15% (95% CI 9% to 21%), from 58.2 to 49.6 CTs per 100 ultrasounds; the ratio of MRIs to ultrasounds declined by 13% (95% CI 7% to 19%), from 37.5 to 32.5 per 100. Of 300 invited, 190 (63%) completed the web-based survey in 17 clinics. 154 (81%) noticed the radiation exposure information and 158 (83.2%) noticed the cost information. Clinicians believed radiation exposure information was more influential than cost information: when unsure clinically about ordering a test (radiation=69.7%; cost=46.4%), when a patient wanted a test not clinically indicated (radiation=77.5%; cost=54.8%), when they had a choice between imaging modalities (radiation=77.9%; cost=66.6%), in patient care discussions (radiation=71.9%; cost=43.2%) and in trainee discussions (radiation=56.5%; cost=53.7%). Resident physicians and nurse practitioners were more likely to report that the cost information influenced them (p<0.05).

Displaying radiation exposure and cost information at order entry may improve clinician awareness about diagnostic imaging safety risks and costs. More clinicians reported the radiation information influenced their clinical practice.

Recently created in 2010, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) supports patient-centered comparative effectiveness research with a focus on prioritizing high-impact studies and improving trial design methodology. The Association of University Radiologists Radiology Research Alliance Task Force on patient-centered outcomes research in Radiology aims to review recently funded imaging-centric projects that adhere to the methodologies established by PCORI. We provide an overview of the successful application of PCORI standards to radiology topics, highlight how these methodologies differ from other forms of radiology research, and identify opportunities for new projects as well as potential barriers for involvement. Our hope is that review of specific case examples in radiology will clarify the use and value of PCORI methods mandated and supported nationally by the Affordable Care Act.

Physician awareness of the risks of ionizing radiation exposure related to medical imaging is poor. Effective educational interventions informing physicians of such risk, especially in emergency medicine (EM), are lacking. The SIEVERT (Suboptimal Ionizing Radiation Exposure Education - A Void in Emergency Medicine Residency Training) learning module was designed to improve provider knowledge of the risks of radiation exposure from medical imaging and comfort in communicating these risks to patients. The 1-hour module consists of introductory lecture, interactive discussion, and role-playing scenarios. In this pilot study, we assessed the educational effect using unmatched, anonymous preintervention and postintervention questionnaires that assessed fund of knowledge, participant self-reported imaging ordering practices in several clinical scenarios, and trainee comfort level in discussing radiation risks with patients. All 25 EM resident participants completed the preintervention questionnaire, and 22 completed the postintervention questionnaire within 4 hours after participation. Correct responses on the 14-question learning assessment increased from 6.32 (standard deviation = 2.36) preintervention to 12.23 (standard deviation = 1.85) post-intervention. Overall, 24% of residents were comfortable with discussing the risks of ionizing radiation exposure with patients preintervention, whereas 41% felt comfortable postintervention. Participants ordered fewer computed tomography scans in 2 of the 4 clinical scenarios after attending the educational intervention. There was improvement in EM residents' knowledge regarding the risks of ionizing radiation exposure from medical imaging, and increased participant self-reported comfort levels in the discussion of these risks with patients after the 1-hour SIEVERT learning module.

Overtesting, the downstream consequences of overdiagnosis, and overtreatment of some patients are topics of growing debate within emergency medicine (EM). The "Preventing Overdiagnosis" conference, hosted by The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, with sponsorship from consumer organizations, medical journals, and academic institutions, is evidence of an expanding interest in this topic. However, EM represents a compellingly unique environment, with increased decision density tied to high stakes for patients and providers with missed or delayed diagnoses in a professional atmosphere that does not tolerate mistakes. This article reviews the relevance of this reductionist paradigm to EM, provides a first-hand synopsis of the first "Preventing Overdiagnosis" conference, and assesses barriers to moving the concept of less test ordering to reality.

Diagnostic imaging is integral to the evaluation of many emergency department (ED) patients. However, relatively little effort has been devoted to patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR) in emergency diagnostic imaging. This article provides background on this topic and the conclusions of the 2015 Academic Emergency Medicine consensus conference PCOR work group regarding "Diagnostic Imaging in the Emergency Department: A Research Agenda to Optimize Utilization." The goal was to determine a prioritized research agenda to establish which outcomes related to emergency diagnostic imaging are most important to patients, caregivers, and other key stakeholders and which methods will most optimally engage patients in the decision to undergo imaging. Case vignettes are used to emphasize these concepts as they relate to a patient's decision to seek care at an ED and the care received there. The authors discuss applicable research methods and approaches such as shared decision-making that could facilitate better integration of patient-centered outcomes and patient-reported outcomes into decisions regarding emergency diagnostic imaging. Finally, based on a modified Delphi process involving members of the PCOR work group, prioritized research questions are proposed to advance the science of patient-centered outcomes in ED diagnostic imaging.

While emergency diagnostic imaging use has increased significantly, there is a lack of evidence for corresponding improvements in patient outcomes. Optimizing emergency department (ED) diagnostic imaging has the potential to improve the quality, safety, and outcomes of ED patients, but to date, there have not been any coordinated efforts to further our evidence-based knowledge in this area. The objective of this article is to discuss six aspects of diagnostic imaging to provide background information on the underlying framework for the 2015 Academic Emergency Medicine consensus conference, "Diagnostic Imaging in the Emergency Department: A Research Agenda to Optimize Utilization." The consensus conference aims to generate a high priority research agenda for emergency diagnostic imaging that will inform the design of future investigations. The six components herein will serve as the group topics for the conference: 1) patient-centered outcomes research; 2) clinical decision rules; 3) training, education, and competency; 4) knowledge translation and barriers to image optimization; 5) use of administrative data; and 6) comparative effectiveness research: alternatives to traditional CT use.

Despite the potential benefits of shared decision-making (SDM), its integration into emergency care is challenging. Emergency physician (EP) perceptions about the frequency with which they use SDM, its potential to reduce medically unnecessary diagnostic testing, and the barriers to employing SDM in the emergency department (ED) were investigated.

As part of a larger project examining beliefs on overtesting, questions were posed to EPs about SDM. Qualitative analysis of two multispecialty focus groups was done exploring decision-making around resource use to generate survey items. The survey was then pilot-tested and revised to focus on advanced diagnostic imaging and SDM. The final survey was administered to EPs recruited at four emergency medicine (EM) conferences and 15 ED group meetings. This report addresses responses regarding SDM.

A purposive sample of 478 EPs from 29 states were approached, of whom 435 (91%) completed the survey. EPs estimated that, on average, multiple reasonable management options exist in over 50% of their patients and reported employing SDM with 58% of such patients. Respondents perceived SDM as a promising solution to reduce overtesting. However, despite existing research to the contrary, respondents also commonly cited beliefs that 1) "many patients prefer that the physician decides," 2) "when offered a choice, many patients opt for more aggressive care than they need," and 3) "it is too complicated for patients to know how to choose."

Most surveyed EPs believe SDM is a potential high-yield solution to overtesting, but many perceive patient-related barriers to its successful implementation.

Reduced-dose computed tomography (CT) scans have been recommended for diagnosis of kidney stone but are rarely used in the emergency department (ED) setting. Test characteristics are incompletely characterized, particularly in obese patients. Our primary outcome is to determine the sensitivity and specificity of a reduced-dose CT protocol for symptomatic ureteral stones, particularly those large enough to require intervention, using a protocol stratified by patient size.

This was a prospective, blinded observational study of 201 patients at an academic medical center. Consenting subjects underwent both regular- and reduced-dose CT, stratified into a high and low body mass index (BMI) protocol based on effective abdominal diameter. Reduced-dose CT scans were interpreted by radiologists blinded to regular-dose interpretations. Follow-up for outcome and intervention was performed at 90 days.

CT scans with both regular and reduced doses were conducted for 201 patients, with 63% receiving the high BMI reduced-dose protocol. Ureteral stone was identified in 102 patients (50.7%) of those receiving regular-dose CT, with a ureteral stone greater than 5 mm identified in 26 subjects (12.9%). Sensitivity of the reduced-dose CT for any ureteral stone was 90.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 82.3% to 95.0%), with a specificity of 99.0% (95% CI 93.7% to 100.0%). For stones greater than 5 mm, sensitivity was 100% (95% CI 85.0% to 100.0%). Reduced-dose CT identified 96% of patients who required intervention for ureteral stone within 90 days. Mean reduction in size-specific dose estimate was 18.6 milligray (mGy), from 21.7 mGy (SD 9.7) to 3.4 mGy (SD 0.9).

CT with substantial dose reduction was 90.2% (95% CI 82.3% to 95.0%) sensitive and 98.9% (95% CI 85.0% to 100.0%) specific for ureteral stones in ED patients with a wide range of BMIs. Reduced-dose CT was 96.0% (95% CI 80.5% to 99.3%) sensitive for ureteral stones requiring intervention within 90 days.