26
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      National audit on the appropriateness of CT and MRI examinations in Luxembourg

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objectives

          In Luxembourg, the frequency of CT and MRI examinations per inhabitant is among the highest in Europe. A national audit was conducted to evaluate the appropriateness of CT and MRI examinations according to the national referral guidelines for medical imaging.

          Methods

          Three hundred and eighty-eight CT and 330 MRI requests corresponding to already performed examinations were provided by all radiology departments in Luxembourg. Four external radiologists evaluated the clinical elements for justification present in each request. They consensually assessed the appropriateness of each requested examination with regard to the national referral guidelines and their clinical experience.

          Results

          The appropriateness rate (AR) was higher for MRI requests than for CT requests (79% vs. 61%; p < 0.001). AR was higher for requests referred by medical specialists rather than by general practitioners, both for CT requests (70% vs. 37%; p < 0.001) and MRI requests (83% vs. 64%; p = 0.002). For CT, AR was higher when the requests concerned paediatric rather than adult patients (82% vs. 58%; p < 0.001), when the radiology departments were equipped with both CT and MRI units rather than with only CT units (65% vs. 47%, p = 0.004) and when the requests concerned head-neck (79%), chest (77%) and chest-abdominal-pelvic (81%) areas rather than spinal (28%), extremity (51%) and abdominal-pelvic (63%) areas ( p < 0.001).

          Conclusions

          The appropriateness of CT and MRI in Luxembourg is not satisfactory and collective efforts to improve should be continued. The focus should be on general practitioners and on spinal CT examinations.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (10.1186/s13244-019-0731-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references12

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          ESR concept paper on value-based radiology

          (2017)
          The European Society of Radiology (ESR) established a Working Group on Value-Based Imaging (VBI WG) in August 2016 in response to developments in European healthcare systems in general, and the trend within radiology to move from volume- to value-based practice in particular. The value-based healthcare (VBH) concept defines “value” as health outcomes achieved for patients relative to the costs of achieving them. Within this framework, value measurements start at the beginning of therapy; the whole diagnostic process is disregarded, and is considered only if it is the cause of errors or complications. Making the case for a new, multidisciplinary organisation of healthcare delivery centred on the patient, this paper establishes the diagnosis of disease as a first outcome in the interrelated activities of the healthcare chain. Metrics are proposed for measuring the quality of radiologists’ diagnoses and the various ways in which radiologists provide value to patients, other medical specialists and healthcare systems at large. The ESR strongly believes value-based radiology (VBR) is a necessary complement to existing VBH concepts. The Society is determined to establish a holistic VBR programme to help European radiologists deal with changes in the evolution from volume- to value-based evaluation of radiological activities. Main Messages • Value-based healthcare defines value as patient’s outcome over costs. • The VBH framework disregards the diagnosis as an outcome. • VBH considers diagnosis only if wrong or a cause of complications. • A correct diagnosis is the first outcome that matters to patients. • Metrics to measure radiologists’ impacts on patient outcomes are key. • The value provided by radiology is multifaceted, going beyond exam volumes.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Clinicians’ justification of imaging: do radiation issues play a role?

            Objective To explore clinicians’ knowledge and consideration of radiation, in relation to their referral practice and use of referral guidelines for imaging. Methods A questionnaire was handed out to 213 clinicians in Norway; all responded: 77 general practitioners, 71 hospital physicians and 65 non-physicians (55 manual physiotherapists, 10 chiropractors). Questions concerned weighting of radiation dose, guideline use, referrals unlikely to affect treatment, doses from imaging procedures, ranking of imaging as radiation source, and deterministic and stochastic effects. For radiation knowledge, a total score was aggregated. Results The mean radiation knowledge score was 30.4/71. Most respondents underestimated doses from high-dose imaging, e.g., barium enema (94.7%), chest CT (57.7%) and abdominal CT (52.7%). Limited radiation knowledge was not compensated by using guidelines. Only 20% of physicians and 72% of non-physicians used referral guidelines. Non-physicians weighted radiation dose as being more important than physicians when referring; they also reported fewer referrals as being unlikely to affect treatment. Such referrals and not using guidelines were related to lower weighting of radiation dose but not to radiation knowledge. Conclusion Limited radiation knowledge and guideline use indicate suboptimal justification of referrals. When justifying imaging, weighting of radiation dose may play a larger role than detailed radiation knowledge.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Survey of inappropriate use of magnetic resonance imaging

              Objective There are concerns that not all costly advanced imaging is appropriate. However, studies about the appropriateness of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are sparse. The aim of this study was to review various MRI examinations done at a university hospital to determine whether there is inappropriate use. Methods Altogether 150 common MRIs (upper abdomen or liver, lumbar spine, knee, head and head of children performed under anaesthesia, 30 each) were reviewed consecutively. The referrals and corresponding patient files were analysed by senior radiologists and the indications of the examinations were compared to the referral criteria. Results Seven per cent of the examinations were deemed inappropriate. All the MRIs of the head done on children were indicated. One to three examinations in all other subgroups were not indicated. The most common appropriate indications were ambiguous hepatic, pancreatic or adrenal lesions, prolonged lower back pain, suspicion of meniscus rupture, brain malignancy and developmental disorder of a child, respectively. Conclusions Although the proportion of inappropriate examinations was not high; financial issues and the growing number of patients referred for MRI are of concern. Education and regular use of up-to-date referral guidelines could help to further improve appropriateness. Main Messages •Seven per cent of the MRI examinations analysed were inappropriate at a university hospital. •Everyday practices of a hospital may contribute to the level of appropriateness. •A survey of indications for previous MRI examinations might be helpful in various institutions.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                +352 247 85681 , aurelien.bouette@ms.etat.lu
                Journal
                Insights Imaging
                Insights Imaging
                Insights into Imaging
                Springer Berlin Heidelberg (Berlin/Heidelberg )
                1869-4101
                20 May 2019
                20 May 2019
                December 2019
                : 10
                : 54
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Radiation Protection Department, Health Directorate, Ministry of Health, Allée Marconi - Villa Louvigny, Luxembourg, L-2120 Luxembourg
                [2 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2308 1657, GRID grid.462844.8, Department of Pediatric Imaging, , Armand Trousseau Hospital, APHP, The MAMUTH Hospital (University Department for Innovative Therapies in Musculoskeletal Diseases), Sorbonne Université, ; Paris, France
                [3 ]Radiology Department, Ziekenhuis Oost-Limpurg, Schiepse bos 6, 3600 Genk, Belgium
                [4 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2300 6614, GRID grid.413328.f, Service de Radiologie, , Hôpital Saint-Louis, Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris, ; 1 Avenue Claude Vellefaux, 75010 Paris, France
                [5 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0645 1582, GRID grid.413914.a, Service d’Imagerie Médicale, , Centre Hospitalier Régional de la Citadelle, Liège, ; 1 Boulevard du 12ème de Ligne, 4000 Liège, Belgium
                [6 ]Statistic, Independent Statistician, Montréal, QC Canada
                Article
                731
                10.1186/s13244-019-0731-9
                6527721
                31111303
                8aa6a846-5f3b-4266-b26f-db230074d748
                © The Author(s). 2019

                Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

                History
                : 9 October 2018
                : 13 March 2019
                Categories
                Original Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2019

                Radiology & Imaging
                clinical audit,referral,guidelines,computed tomography scanner,magnetic resonance imaging

                Comments

                Comment on this article