Appropriateness of Referrals From Primary Care for Lumbar MRI

Background: A number of papers highlight the extent to which low back pain (LBP) is generally mismanaged, especially regarding overuse of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). International guidelines do not recommend routine imaging, including MRI, and seek to guide clinicians only to refer for imaging based on specific indications. Despite this, several studies show an increase in the use of MRI among patients with LBP and an imbalance between appropriate versus inappropriate use of MRI for LBP. This study aimed to investigate to what extent referrals from general practice for lumbar MRI complied with clinical guideline recommendations in a Danish setting.Materials and methods: From 2014-2018, all referrals for lumbar MRI were included from general practitioners in the Central Denmark Region for diagnostic imaging at a public regional hospital. A modified version of the American College of Radiology Imaging Appropriateness Criteria for LBP was used to classify referrals as appropriate or inappropriate, based on the unstructured text in the GPs’ referrals. Appropriate referrals included fractures, cancer, symptoms persisting for more than 6 weeks of non-surgical treatment, previous surgery, candidate for surgery or suspicion of cauda equina. Inappropriate referrals were sub-classified as lacking information about previous non-surgical treatment and duration. Results: Of the 3,772 retrieved referrals for MRI of the lumbar spine, 55% were selected and a total of 2,051 referrals were categorised. Approximately one quarter (24.5%) were categorised as appropriate, and 75.5% were deemed inappropriate. 51% of the inappropriate referrals lacked information about previous non-surgical treatment, and 49% had no information about the duration of non-surgical treatment. Apart from minor yearly fluctuations, there was no change in the distribution of appropriate and inappropriate MRI referrals from 2014 to 2018.Conclusion:The majority of lumbar MRI referrals (75.5%) from general practitioners for lumbar MRI did not fulfil the ACR Imaging Appropriateness Criteria for LBP based on the unstructured text of their referrals. There is a need for referrers to include all guideline-relevant information in referrals for imaging. More research is needed to determine whether this is due to patients not fulfilling guideline recommendations or simply the content of the referrals.

Combined Lumbar Spine MRI and CT Appropriateness Checklist: A Quality Improvement Project in Saskatchewan, Canada

Background As rates of advanced imaging for lower back pain continue to increase, there is a need to ensure appropriateness of imaging. The goal of this project was to reduce the number of inappropriate MRI and CT requests for lower back pain patients and facilitate appropriate imaging by developing a combined imaging appropriateness checklist for lumbar spine MRI and CT. Methods In prior work, we developed and adopted individual evidence-based lumbar spine MRI and CT checklists into the radiology requisition process. In the current project, a combined checklist was developed and trialed in one of the former Saskatchewan health regions (Five Hills) beginning in May 2018. Using statistical process control (SPC), control charts compared monthly number of imaging requests pre- and post-checklist implementation from May 2017 to February 2020. Monthly number of lumbar spine MRI and CT requisitions in the nearby former Saskatchewan Regina Qu’Appelle Health Region, in which the combined checklist was not trialed, were also plotted and compared as a balancing measure. Results In Five Hills, a shift (decrease) was observed in the monthly number of lumbar spine MRI requisitions seven months following the implementation of the combined checklist. However, the monthly number of lumbar spine CT requisitions did not change significantly. In the Regina Qu’Appelle Health Region, there was a shift (increase) in the monthly number of lumbar spine MRI requisitions, while the monthly number of lumbar spine CT requests decreased after the implementation of the combined checklist. Conclusions The combined checklist with evidence-based indications for lumbar spine MRI and CT imaging in lower back pain patients appeared to reduce the complexity associated with two previous individual checklists and facilitate imaging appropriateness. Accountable benefits may include the reduction of radiation exposure as a result of unnecessary and repeated imaging and reduction in wait times for CT and/or MRI.

Imaging Appropriateness in Pediatric Radiology during COVID-19 Pandemic: A Retrospective Comparison with No COVID-19 Period

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of accesses to the Pediatric Emergency Department (pED) in Italy sharply decreased by 30%. The purpose of this study is to evaluate how this novel setting impacted on management of children with trauma, and the use and appropriateness of imaging studies in such patients at the pED. All imaging studies performed in patients with trauma at the pED of a tertiary children’s Hospital during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic (between March and May 2020) were reviewed, in comparison with a control time interval (March to May 2019). In the pre-COVID control era, 669 imaging studies documented bone fractures in 145/568 children (25.5%). In the COVID-era, 79/177 (44.6%) pediatric patients showed bone fractures on 193 imaging studies. Comparative analysis shows a 71% decrease in imaging studies, and the proportion of negative imaging studies (with no evidence of bone fractures) dropped in 2020 by 19% compared to the 2019 control era (p < 0.001). The sharp decrease of negative studies suggests that the rate of appropriateness was higher during COVID-era, suggesting some attitude toward defensive medicine in the previous control year, as a result of some degree of imaging inappropriateness. The impact of a pandemic on emergency medicine may offer a unique opportunity to revisit diagnostic and therapeutic protocols in pediatrics.

Improved Appropriateness of Advanced Diagnostic Imaging After Implementation of Clinical Decision Support Mechanism

The Protecting Access to Medicare Act (PAMA) mandates clinical decision support mechanism (CDSM) consultation for all advanced imaging. There are a growing number of studies examining the association of CDSM use with imaging appropriateness, but a paucity of multicenter data. This observational study evaluates the association between changes in advanced imaging appropriateness scores with increasing provider exposure to CDSM. Each provider’s first 200 consecutive anonymized requisitions for advanced imaging (CT, MRI, ultrasound, nuclear medicine) using a single CDSM (CareSelect, Change Healthcare) between January 1, 2017 and December 31, 2019 were collected from 288 US institutions. Changes in imaging requisition proportions among four appropriateness categories (“usually appropriate” [green], “may be appropriate” [yellow], “usually not appropriate” [red], and unmapped [gray]) were evaluated in relation to the chronological order of the requisition for each provider and total provider exposure to CDSM using logistic regression fits and Wald tests. The number of providers and requisitions included was 244,158 and 7,345,437, respectively. For 10,123 providers with ≥ 200 requisitions (2,024,600 total requisitions), the fraction of green, yellow, and red requisitions among the last 10 requisitions changed by +3.0% (95% confidence interval +2.6% to +3.4%), −0.8% (95% CI −0.5% to −1.1%), and −3.0% (95% CI 3.3% to −2.7%) in comparison with the first 10, respectively. Providers with > 190 requisitions had 8.5% (95% CI 6.3% to 10.7%) more green requisitions, 2.3% (0.7% to 3.9%) fewer yellow requisitions, and 0.5% (95% CI −1.0% to 2.0%) fewer red (not statistically significant) requisitions relative to providers with ≤ 10 requisitions. Increasing provider exposure to CDSM is associated with improved appropriateness scores for advanced imaging requisitions.

Appropriate abdominal imaging for the emergency department patient

Abdominal x-ray series (AXR) and abdominal CT scans (ACT) are commonly performed to aid in the diagnosis for patients who present to the emergency room with abdominal pain. Patients commonly receive both an AXR and ACT, due to a lack of knowledge regarding imaging appropriateness among healthcare professionals who order these exams. A primary simple retrospective data-analysis was performed to understand the prevalence of how often both exams were ordered in three Nova Scotia emergency departments. A literature review was also conducted to compare the diagnostic accuracy of each diagnostic imaging modality. Several articles showed that patients who have an AXR also have an ACT that demonstrates an abnormal finding. Emergency department physicians are not reassured when abdominal x-rays are negative and do not show abnormal findings, and as a result, a CT scan is also performed. Radiation dose must be considered when ordering multiple diagnostic imaging exams. A low-dose CT (LDCT) can be used to reduce the radiation exposure to the patient, while maintaining high diagnostic quality images. Image quality can be enhanced at a reduced radiation dose by using an image reconstruction technique such as adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASIR). Understanding the most appropriate abdominal imaging modality for emergency department patients allows for fewer examinations being ordered and a reduction of radiation dose to the patient. When the most appropriate imaging is performed, a definitive diagnosis can be made and the best treatment can be provided to patients. This information can help to create an imaging appropriateness protocol for emergency departments.Additional research can help determine the cost differences between the two exams and the influence a protocol change could have on the emergency and diagnostic imaging departments.Keywords: AXR – Abdominal x-ray series, ACT – Abdominal computed tomography scan, CT – Computed tomography, SDCT – Standard-dose CT, LDCT – Low-dose CT, ASIR – Adaptative statistical iterative reconstruction FBP – Filtered back projection, CTDIvol – Volume computed tomography dose index

An International Survey of Quality and Safety Programs in Radiology

Purpose: The aim of this study was to determine the status of radiology quality improvement programs in a variety of selected nations worldwide. Methods: A survey was developed by select members of the International Economics Committee of the American College of Radiology on quality programs and was distributed to committee members. Members responded on behalf of their country. The 51-question survey asked about 12 different quality initiatives which were grouped into 4 themes: departments, users, equipment, and outcomes. Respondents reported whether a designated type of quality initiative was used in their country and answered subsequent questions further characterizing it. Results: The response rate was 100% and represented Australia, Canada, China, England, France, Germany, India, Israel, Japan, the Netherlands, Russia, and the United States. The most frequently reported quality initiatives were imaging appropriateness (91.7%) and disease registries (91.7%), followed by key performance indicators (83.3%) and morbidity and mortality rounds (83.3%). Peer review, equipment accreditation, radiation dose monitoring, and structured reporting were reported by 75.0% of respondents, followed by 58.3% of respondents for quality audits and critical incident reporting. The least frequently reported initiatives included Lean/Kaizen exercises and physician performance assessments, implemented by 25.0% of respondents. Conclusion: There is considerable diversity in the quality programs used throughout the world, despite some influence by national and international organizations, from whom further guidance could increase uniformity and optimize patient care in radiology.