Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Appropriateness: analysis of outpatient radiology requests

Analisi dell’appropriatezza delle richieste ambulatoriali radiologiche

  • Resources Management / Gestione Delle Risorse
  • Published:
La radiologia medica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

This study assessed radiology requests and the influence of previous radiological procedures on their specificity and appropriateness, evaluated diagnostic outcomes and recorded the economic impact of inappropriate examinations.

Materials and methods

We prospectively analysed 4,018 outpatient requests, the appropriateness of which was assessed using an evaluation form. Economic analysis was based on costs listed in the Italian National Health Services (NHS) national tariff as established by the Ministerial Decree of 22 July 1996. Statistical analysis was carried out using Pearson’s test and univariate and multivariate logistic regression models.

Results

Of 4,018 outpatient requests, 57% were not included in a follow-up protocol and 56% were found to be appropriate. The diagnostic question was confirmed in 66% of cases considered appropriate (p<0.001). The existence of previous investigations had a significant impact on appropriateness and diagnostic outcome (p<0.001). The total cost of the requests was 257,317 euros, with inappropriate requests accounting for 94,012 euro (36.5%).

Conclusions

We found a 56% rate of appropriate requests and demonstrated that appropriate prescriptions provided with a specific clinical question led to significantly higher confirmation rates of the diagnostic hypothesis. In addition, inappropriate requests had a major negative economic impact.

Riassunto

Obiettivo

Scopo del nostro lavoro è stato verificare l’appropriatezza delle richieste di esami di diagnostica per immagini non inserite in programmi di follow-up e quanto i precedenti radiologici influiscano sulla specificità delle richieste e sull’appropriatezza, valutare il loro riscontro diagnostico, registrare l’impatto economico degli esami inappropriati.

Materiali e metodi

Abbiamo analizzato 4018 richieste ambulatoriali, l’appropriatezza è stata verificata mediante una scheda di valutazione dedicata. Nell’analisi economica sono stati valutate le tariffe previste dal nomenclatore per il Sistema Sanitario Nazionale (SSN) determinato dal Decreto Ministeriale (DM) del 22/07/1996. L’analisi statistica ha utilizzato il test di Pearson e modelli di regressione logistica univariata e multivariata.

Risultati

Le richieste non in follow-up hanno rappresentato il 57% delle prescrizioni esaminate e sono risultate appropriate nel 55,5% dei casi. La conferma del quesito diagnostico si è verificata nel 66% dei casi appropriati (p<0,001). La presenza di precedenti indagini ha influenzato l’appropriatezza delle richieste (p<0,001) e la conferma della diagnosi (p<0,001). Il fatturato totale degli esami è stato di 257317 euro, gli esami non appropriati hanno pesato per 94012 euro (36,5%).

Conclusioni

Abbiamo documentato una appropriatezza prescrittiva del 56% e come una richiesta appropriata associata alla presenza di un quesito specifico comporti una percentuale significativamente elevata di conferme dell’ipotesi diagnostica, calcolando inoltre il rilevante impatto sul piano finanziario delle richieste inappropriate.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References/Bibliografia

  1. Berlin L (2001) American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria and Standards: separate programs. AJR Am J Roentgenol 176:811–812

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. http://www.agenas.it/agenas_pdf/diag_per_immag.pdf. Last access July 2011

  3. Tierney WM, Miller ME, McDonald CJ (1990) The effect on test ordering of informing physicians of the charges for outpatient diagnostic tests. N Engl J Med 322:1499–1504

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Kerry S, Oakeshott P, Dundas D, Williams J (2000) Influence of postal distribution of the Royal College of Radiologists’ guidelines, together with feedback on radiological referral rates, on X-ray referrals from general practice: a randomized controlled trial. Fam Pract 17:46–52

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Rao JK, Kroenke K, Mihaliak KA et al (2002) Can guidelines impact the ordering of magnetic resonance imaging studies by primary care providers for low back pain? Am J Manag Care 8:27–35

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bree RL, Kazerooni EA, Katz SJ (1996) Effect of mandatory radiology consultation on inpatient imaging use. A randomized controlled trial. JAMA 276:1595–1598

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Levy G, Blachar A, Goldstein L et al (2006) Nonradiologist utilization of American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria in a preauthorization center for MRI requests: applicability and effects. AJR Am J Roentgenol 187:855–858

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Vartanians VM, Sistrom CL, Weilburg JB et al (2010) Increasing the appropriateness of outpatient imaging: effects of a barrier to ordering low-yield examinations. Radiology 255:842–849

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. http://www.cms.gov/DemoProjectsEvalRpts/MD/itemdetail.asp?itemID=CMS1222075

  10. www.lazio.cgil.it/welfare/filelist_download.asp?id=121

  11. Ministero della Sanità (1996) http://www.normativasanitaria.it/jsp/dettaglio.jsp?id=6403. Last access July 2011

  12. Kahn CE Jr, Michalski TA, Erickson SJ et al (1997) Appropriateness of imaging procedure requests: do radiologists agree? AJR Am J Roentgenol 169:11–14

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Bindels R, Hasman A, van Wersch JW et al (2003) The reliability of assessing the appropriateness of requested diagnostic tests. Med Decis Making 23:31–37

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Tigges S, Sutherland D, Manaster BJ (2000) Do radiologists use the American College of Radiology Musculoskeletal Appropriateness Criteria? AJR Am J Roentgenol 175:545–547

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Wolfe RM, Sharp LK, Wang RM (2004) Family physicians’ opinions and attitudes to three clinical practice guidelines. J Am Board Fam Pract 17:150–157

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Lomas J, Anderson GM, Domnick-Pierre K et al (1989) Do practice guidelines guide practice? The effect of a consensus statement on the practice of physicians. N Engl J Med 321:1306–1311

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. van Wijk MA, Bohnen AM, van der Lei J (1999) Analysis of the practice guidelines of the Dutch College of General Practitioners with respect to the use of blood tests. J Am Med Inform Assoc 6:322–331

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Martin TA, Quiroz FA, Rand SD, Kahn CE Jr (1999) Applicability of American College of Radiology appropriateness criteria in a general internal medicine clinic. AJR Am J Roentgenol 173:9–11

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Van Breuseghem I, Geusens E (2006) Assessment of the appropriateness of requested radiological examinations for outpatients and the potential financial consequences of guideline application. JBR-BTR 89:8–11

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lehnert BE, Bree RL (2010) Analysis of appropriateness of outpatient CT and MRI referred from primary care clinics at an academic medical center: how critical is the need for improved decision support? J Am Coll Radiol 7:192–197

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. De Filippo M, Corsi A, Evaristi L et al (2011) Critical issues in radiology requests and reports. Radiol Med 116:152–162

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Forman HP, Beauchamp NJ Jr, Kazerooni EA et al (2010) Masters of radiology panel discussion: who is accountable for the appropriateness of studies—the radiologist, the referring physician, or both? AJR Am J Roentgenol 195:968–973

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Diagnostic Department, Radiology, National Institute for Infectious Diseases “L. Spallanzani”, Via Portuense 292, 00149, Rome, Italy

    M. Cristofaro, E. Busi Rizzi, V. Schininà, D. Chiappetta & C. Bibbolino

  2. Department of Clinical Epidemiology, National Institute for Infectious Diseases “L. Spallanzani”, Via Portuense 292, 00149, Rome, Italy

    C. Angeletti

Authors
  1. M. Cristofaro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. E. Busi Rizzi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. V. Schininà
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. D. Chiappetta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. C. Angeletti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. C. Bibbolino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Cristofaro.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cristofaro, M., Busi Rizzi, E., Schininà, V. et al. Appropriateness: analysis of outpatient radiology requests. Radiol med 117, 322–332 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-011-0725-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-011-0725-2

Keywords

Parole chiave

Search

Navigation