Skip to main content
Log in

Evidenced-based radiology? A single-institution review of imaging referral appropriateness including monetary and dose estimates for inappropriate scans

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Irish Journal of Medical Science (1971 -) Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

There has been a year on year increase in imaging requests at our academic institution. The iRefer guidelines are produced by the Royal College of Radiologists in the UK and are designed to prevent inappropriate imaging and radiation exposure. They have been available to general practitioners and hospital physicians in Ireland since March 2015.

Aims

Our aims were to determine the proportion of inappropriate imaging referrals pre- and post-guideline introduction and to calculate the cost and dose estimates for inappropriate scans.

Methods

A retrospective review of 1124 radiographs was performed with reference to a validated audit template. Emergency department, in-patient, and general practitioner referrals were reviewed. Cost and cumulative dose estimates were calculated for inappropriate referrals taking into account salaries, average time spent performing/reporting radiographs, and median effective dose values.

Results

The introduction of the iRefer guidelines has not significantly affected the proportion of inappropriate radiograph referrals at our institution, 42% pre-introduction and 43% post-introduction. We identified 784 inappropriate referrals across 6 radiograph subtypes, imparting a total median effective dose of 65.1 mSv to patients. The time spent performing inappropriate abdominal and spinal radiographs in 2017 yielded an estimated cost of €8036.40.

Conclusion

A significant amount of inappropriate radiographs continue to be requested and performed, exposing patients to needless ionizing radiation and wasting staff members time at a financial cost. Interventions are needed to decrease inappropriate referrals.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

ESR:

European Society of Radiology

RCR:

Royal College of Radiologists

UK:

United Kingdom

HSE:

Health Service Executive

GP:

General practitioner

PNS:

Para-nasal sinus

NB:

Nasal bone

AR:

Abdominal radiographs

ED:

Emergency department

IP:

In-patient

SR:

Spinal radiograph

CDS:

Clinical decision support

mSv:

Millisieverts

References

  1. Hendee WR, Becker GJ, Borgstede JP, Bosma J, Casarella WJ, Erickson BA, Maynard CD, Thrall JH, Wallner PE (2010) Addressing overutilization in medical imaging. Radiology 257:240–245. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.10100063

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Smith-Bindman R, Miglioretti DL, Larson EB (2008) Rising use of diagnostic medical imaging in a large integrated health system. Health Aff (Millwood) 27:1491–1502. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.27.6.1491

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Knechtges PM, Carlos RC (2007) The evolving role of radiologists within the health care system. J Am Coll Radiol 4:626–635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2007.05.014

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. HSE (2006) Health service executive code of governance: framework for the corporate and financial governance of the health service executive. https://https://www.hse.ie/eng/services/publications/corporate/codeofgovernance.pdf. Accessed 01 Dec 2018.

  5. Frenz MB, Mee AS (2005) Diagnostic radiation exposure and cancer risk. Gut 54:889–890. https://doi.org/10.1136/gut.2005.066605

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Lin EC (2010) Radiation risk from medical imaging. Mayo Clin Proc 85:1142–1146; quiz 1146. https://doi.org/10.4065/mcp.2010.0260

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. European Society of Radiology (ESR) ES of R (2011) White paper on radiation protection by the European Society of Radiology. Insights Imaging 2:357–362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13244-011-0108-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. NHS (2014) Diagnostic imaging dataset annual statistical release 2013/14. https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/diagnostic-imaging-dataset/diagnostic-imaging-datasetdiagnostic-imaging-dataset-2013-14-data/. Accessed 01 Dec 2018

  9. Culleton S, Torreggiani W (2014) Analysis of the last decade of weekend out-of-hours CT imaging: how have things changed? Ir Med J 107:77–79

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Broder JS, Bhat R, Boyd JP, Ogloblin IA, Limkakeng A, Hocker MB, Drake WG, Miller T, Harringa JB, Repplinger MD (2016) Who explicitly requests the ordering of computed tomography for emergency department patients? A multicenter prospective study. Emerg Radiol 23:221–227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10140-016-1382-5

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Fine B, Dhanoa D (2014) Imaging appropriateness criteria: why Canadian family physicians should care. Can Fam Physician 60:217–218

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. iRefer |. https://www.irefer.org.uk/. Accessed 19 Nov 2017

  13. Audit of compliance with imaging referral guidelines | The Royal College of Radiologists. https://www.rcr.ac.uk/audit/audit-compliance-imaging-referral-guidelines. Accessed 20 Dec 2017

  14. Patient Safety - Radiation Dose in X-Ray and CT Exams. https://www.radiologyinfo.org/en/info.cfm?pg=safety-xray. Accessed 17 Nov 2018

  15. Remedios D, Drinkwater K, Warwick R, Clinical Radiology Audit Committee (CRAC), The Royal College of Radiologists, London (2014) National audit of appropriate imaging. Clin Radiol 69:1039–1044. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2014.05.109

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Vartanians VM, Sistrom CL, Weilburg JB, Rosenthal DI, Thrall JH (2010) Increasing the appropriateness of outpatient imaging: effects of a barrier to ordering low-yield examinations. Radiology 255:842–849. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.10091228

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Sim EY, Tan DJA, Abdullah HR (2017) The use of computerized physician order entry with clinical decision support reduces practice variance in ordering preoperative investigations: a retrospective cohort study. Int J Med Inform 108:29–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2017.09.015

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Holland K, McGeoch G, Gullery C (2017) A multifaceted intervention to improve primary care radiology referral quality and value in Canterbury. N Z Med J 130:55–64

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James W. Ryan.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal participants performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 2 Cost analysis assumptions

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ryan, J.W., Hollywood, A., Stirling, A. et al. Evidenced-based radiology? A single-institution review of imaging referral appropriateness including monetary and dose estimates for inappropriate scans. Ir J Med Sci 188, 1385–1389 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-019-02005-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-019-02005-8

Keywords

Navigation