No abstract

BACKGROUND: While both administrators of pay-forperformance programs and practicing physicians strive to improve healthcare quality, they sometimes disagree on the best approach. The Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 mandated the creation of the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS), a program that incentivizes more than 700,000 physician participants to report on four domains of care, including healthcare quality. While MIPS performance scores were recently released, little is known about how primary care physicians (PCPs) and their practices are being affected by the program and what actions they are taking in response to MIPS. OBJECTIVES: To (1) describe PCP perspectives and selfreported practice changes related to quality measurement under MIPS and (2) disseminate PCP suggestions for improving the program. DESIGN: Qualitative study employing semi-structured interviews. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty PCPs trained in internal medicine or family medicine who were expected to report under MIPS for calendar year 2017 were interviewed between October 2017 and June 2018. Eight PCPs self-reported to be knowledgeable about MIPS. Seven PCPs worked in small practices. KEY RESULTS: Most PCPs identified advantages of quality measurement under MIPS, including the creation of practice-level systems for quality improvement. However, they also cited disadvantages, including administrative burdens and fears that practices serving vulnerable patients could be penalized. Many participants reported using technology or altering staffing to help with data collection and performance improvement. A few participants were considering selling small practices or joining larger ones to avoid administrative tasks. Suggestions for improving MIPS included simplifying the program to reduce administrative burdens, protecting practices serving vulnerable populations, and improving communication between program administrators and PCPs. CONCLUSIONS: MIPS is succeeding in nudging PCPs to develop quality measurement and improvement systems, but PCPs are concerned that administrative burdens are leading to the diversion of clinical resources away from patient-centered care and negatively impacting patient and clinician satisfaction. Program administrators should improve communication with participants and consider simplifying the program to make it less burdensome. Future work should be done to investigate how technical assistance programs can target PCPs that serve vulnerable patient populations and are having difficulty adapting to MIPS.

Objectives: Suggestive radiographic studies with nonvisualization of the appendix can present a challenge to clinicians in the evaluation of pediatric abdominal pain. The primary objective of this study was to quantify the accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and of ultrasound (US) in the setting of nonvisualization of the appendix. Secondary objectives reported include sensitivity of MRI and US overall and correlation between MRI and US for diagnosis of appendicitis.Methods: Records of pediatric emergency department patients aged 3 to 21 years undergoing MRI and/ or US for the evaluation of appendicitis were retrospectively reviewed. Radiographs were categorized as a normal appendix, neither demonstrating the appendix nor demonstrating abnormalities consistent with appendicitis; equivocal, not demonstrating the appendix but showing evidence of appendicitis; demonstrating an abnormal appendix consistent with appendicitis; or demonstrating an alternate pathology. The reading was compared with the final diagnosis for accuracy.Results: Of the 589 patients included, 146 had appendicitis. Diagnostic accuracy for studies with a nonvisualized appendix without secondary signs of appendicitis was 100% for MRI and 91.4% (95% CI = 87.3% to 94.2%) for US. Diagnostic accuracy for studies with a nonvisualized appendix with secondary signs of appendicitis was 50% (95% CI = 2.5% to 97.5%) for MRI and 38.9% (95% CI = 18.2% to 64.5%) for US. Appendicitis was ultimately diagnosed in 8.6% of patients with an otherwise negative right lower quadrant (RLQ) US that failed to directly identify the appendix. There was a moderate correlation between US and MRI (q = 0.573, p = 0.0001) when all studies were considered.Conclusions: Magnetic resonance imaging without secondary signs of appendicitis is effective in excluding appendicitis regardless of whether the appendix is directly visualized, while otherwise negative RLQ US that fail to identify the appendix are less useful. Secondary signs of appendicitis without visualization of the appendix were not helpful regardless of radiographic modality. Results of MRI and US correlated moderately well.ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE 2016;23:179-185

Key PointsQuestionHow closely does documentation in electronic health records match the review of systems and physical examination performed by emergency physicians?FindingsIn this case series of 9 licensed emergency physician trainees and 12 observers of 180 patient encounters, 38.5% of the review of systems groups and 53.2% of the physical examination systems documented in the electronic health record were corroborated by direct audiovisual or reviewed audio observation.MeaningThese findings raise the possibility that some physician documentation may not accurately represent actions taken, but further research is needed to assess this in more detail.