Advertisement

European Radiology

, Volume 20, Issue 5, pp 1227–1233 | Cite as

Radiologists’ responses to inadequate referrals

  • Kristin Bakke Lysdahl
  • Bjørn Morten Hofmann
  • Ansgar Espeland
Malpractice

Abstract

Objectives

To investigate radiologists’ responses to inadequate imaging referrals.

Methods

A survey was mailed to Norwegian radiologists; 69% responded. They graded the frequencies of actions related to referrals with ambiguous indications or inappropriate examination choices and the contribution of factors preventing and not preventing an examination of doubtful usefulness from being performed as requested.

Results

Ninety-five percent (344/361) reported daily or weekly actions related to inadequate referrals. Actions differed among subspecialties. The most frequent were contacting the referrer to clarify the clinical problem and checking test results/information in the medical records. Both actions were more frequent among registrars than specialists and among hospital radiologists than institute radiologists. Institute radiologists were more likely to ask the patient for additional information and to examine the patient clinically. Factors rated as contributing most to prevent doubtful examinations were high risk of serious complications/side effects, high radiation dose and low patient age. Factors facilitating doubtful examinations included respect for the referrer’s judgment, patient/next-of-kin wants the examination, patient has arrived, unreachable referrer, and time pressure.

Conclusions

In summary, radiologists facing inadequate referrals considered patient safety and sought more information. Vetting referrals on arrival, easier access to referring clinicians, and time for radiologists to handle inadequate referrals may contribute to improved use of imaging.

Keywords

Referral and consultation Decision making Physician’s role Diagnostic imaging Questionnaires 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank the respondents for their participation. This work was supported by grants from Oslo University College.

References

  1. 1.
    Blachar A, Tal S, Mandel A, Novikov I, Polliack G, Sosna J, Freedman Y, Copel L, Shemer J (2006) Preauthorization of CT and MRI examinations: assessment of a managed care preauthorization program based on the ACR Appropriateness Criteria and the Royal College of Radiology guidelines. J Am Coll Radiol 3:851–859CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berrington de González A, Darby S (2004) Risk of cancer from diagnostic X-rays: estimates for the UK and 14 other countries. Lancet 363:345–351CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Espeland A, Albrektsen G, Larsen JL (1999) Plain radiography of the lumbosacral spine. An audit of referrals from general practitioners. Acta Radiol 40:52–59PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Stavem K, Foss T, Botnmark O, Andersen OK, Erikssen J (2004) Inter-observer agreement in audit of quality of radiology requests and reports. Clin Radiol 59:1018–1024CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Carton M, Auvert B, Guerini H, Boulard JC, Heautot JF, Landre MF, Beauchet A, Sznajderi M, Brun-Ney D, Chagnon S (2002) Assessment of radiological referral practice and effect of computer-based guidelines on radiological requests in two emergency departments. Clin Radiol 57:123–128CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sardanelli F, Quarenghi M, Fausto A, Aliprandi A, Cuppone MT (2005) How many medical requests for US, body CT, and musculoskeletal MR exams in outpatients are inadequate? Radiol Med (Torino) 109:229–233Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Triantopoulou C, Tsalafoutas I, Maniatis P, Papavdis D, Raios G, Siafas I, Velonakis S, Koulentianos E (2005) Analysis of radiological examination request forms in conjunction with justification of X-ray exposures. Eur J Radiol 53:306–311CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Simpson G, Hartrick GS (2007) Use of thoracic computed tomography by general practitioners. Med J Aust 187:43–46PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brause M, Grande G, Mannebach H, Badura B (2006) The impact of social and institutional characteristics on the appropriateness of invasive cardiologic procedures (in German) [abstract]. Med Klin 101:226–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Calvo-Villas JM, Felipe Robayna BF, Gardachar Alarcia JL, Guillen ML, Rivera DV, Olivares EO (2007) Use of the radiological exploration in a medical specialities department (in Spanish) [abstract]. An Med Interna 24:421–427PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kahn CE Jr, Michalski TA, Erickson SJ, Foley WD, Krasnow AZ, Lofgren RP, Quiroz FA, Rand SD (1997) Appropriateness of imaging procedure requests: do radiologists agree? AJR Am J Roentgenol 169:11–14PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Royal College of Radiologists (2007) Making the best use of clinical radiology services. Referral guidelines, 6th edn. RCR, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    European Commission (2001) Radiation protection 118. Referral guidelines for imaging. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    American College of Radiology (2008) ACR appropriateness criteria. http://www.acr.org/ac
  15. 15.
    Hadley JL, Agola J, Wong P (2006) Potential impact of the American College of Radiology appropriateness criteria on CT for trauma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 186:937–942CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Matowe L, Ramsay CR, Grimshaw JM, Gilbert FJ, Macleod MJ, Needham G (2002) Effects of mailed dissemination of the Royal College of Radiologists’ guidelines on general practitioner referrals for radiography: a time series analysis. Clin Radiol 57:575–578CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kumar S, Mankad K, Bhartia B (2007) Awareness of making the best use of a Department of Clinical Radiology amongst physicians in Leeds Teaching Hospitals, UK. Br J Radiol 80:140CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Freeborn DK, Shye D, Mullooly JP, Eraker S, Romeo J (1997) Primary care physicians’ use of lumbar spine imaging tests: effects of guidelines and practice pattern feedback. J Gen Intern Med 12:619–625CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jamtvedt G, Young JM, Kristoffersen DT, O’Brien MA, Oxman AD (2006) Does telling people what they have been doing change what they do? A systematic review of the effects of audit and feedback. Qual Saf Health Care 15:433–436CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Taragin BH, Feng L, Ruzal-Shapiro C (2003) Online radiology appropriateness survey: results and conclusions from an academic internal medicine residency. Acad Radiol 10:781–785CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cascade PN (2004) Unnecessary imaging and radiation risk: the perfect storm for radiologists. J Am Coll Radiol 1:709–711CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bree RL, Kazerooni EA, Katz SJ (1996) Effect of mandatory radiology consultation on inpatient imaging use. A randomized controlled trial. JAMA 276:1595–1598CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gottlieb RH, Hollenberg GM, Fultz PJ, Rubens DJ (1997) Radiologic consultation: effect on inpatient diagnostic imaging evaluation in a teaching hospital. Acad Radiol 4:217–221CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dixon AK, Goldstone KE (2002) Abdominal CT and the euratom directive. Eur Radiol 12:1567–1570CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority (2007) Guidance for use of medical X-ray and MR equipment subjected to approval. Guidance for “Regulations for radiation protection and use of radiation", no. 5. NRPA, OesteraasGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Taraldset A (2008) Statistics and research on physicians in Norway in English. http://www.legeforeningen.no/id/8449 Accessed 2 January 2008
  27. 27.
    Heldaas O, Haslund A, Meyer T (2006) Radiology 2006. Report on personnel situation and structure of positions (in Norwegian). The Norwegian Medical Association, OsloGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Royal College of Radiologists (2003) Making the best use of a Department of Clinical Radiology, 5th edn. RCR, London. Norwegian translation: Hensiktsmessig bruk av en radiologisk avdeling. Retningslinjer for leger (trans: Sandbaek G, Drablos O). http://www.radiologforeningen.no/external/guidelines/INDEX.html
  29. 29.
    The Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration (2006) Ambulant laboratory and radiology services. An analysis of growth in public expenses. Report 02/2006 (in Norwegian). NAV, OsloGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cherryman G (2006) Imaging in primary care. Br J Gen Pract 56:563–564PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Espeland A, Baerheim A (2007) General practitioners’ views on radiology reports of plain radiography for back pain. Scand J Prim Health Care 25:15–19CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Harrison RL, Housden B, Hay C, Dixon AK (2000) Vetting requests for body computed tomography. Eur Radiol 10:1015–1018CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Margulis AR, Bhargavan M, Feldman D, Sunshine JH (2005) Should the ordering of medical imaging examinations be reexamined? J Am Coll Radiol 2:809–811CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ryynanen OP, Lehtovirta J, Soimakallio S, Takala J (2001) General practitioners’ willingness to request plain lumbar spine radiographic examinations. Eur J Radiol 37:47–53CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Baker R, Lecouturier J, Bond S (2006) Explaining variation in GP referral rates for x-rays for back pain. Implement Sci 1:15CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Espeland A, Baerheim A (2003) Factors affecting general practitioners’ decisions about plain radiography for back pain: implications for classification of guideline barriers–a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res 3:8CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Morgan M, Jenkins L, Ridsdale L (2007) Patient pressure for referral for headache: a qualitative study of GPs’ referral behaviour. Br J Gen Pract 57:29–35PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Veldhuis M, Wigersma L, Okkes I (1998) Deliberate departures from good general practice: a study of motives among Dutch general practitioners. Br J Gen Pract 48:1833–1836PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Falkum E, Forde R (2001) Paternalism, patient autonomy, and moral deliberation in the physician-patient relationship. Attitudes among Norwegian physicians. Soc Sci Med 52:239–248CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Khorasani R, Silverman SG, Meyer JE, Gibson M, Weissman BN, Seltzer SE (1994) Design and implementation of a new radiology consultation service in a teaching hospital. AJR Am J Roentgenol 163:457–459PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Picano E, Pasanisi E, Brown J, Marwick TH (2007) A gatekeeper for the gatekeeper: inappropriate referrals to stress echocardiography. Am Heart J 154:285–290CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    American College of Radiologists (2005) ACR practice guideline for communication of diagnostic imaging findings. ACR, Reston, VAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kristin Bakke Lysdahl
    • 1
    • 2
  • Bjørn Morten Hofmann
    • 2
    • 3
  • Ansgar Espeland
    • 4
    • 5
  1. 1.Faculty of Health SciencesOslo University CollegeOsloNorway
  2. 2.Section for Medical Ethics, Faculty of MedicineUniversity of OsloOsloNorway
  3. 3.Faculty of Health Care and NursingGjøvik University CollegeGjøvikNorway
  4. 4.Department of RadiologyHaukeland University HospitalBergenNorway
  5. 5.Section for Radiology, Department of Surgical SciencesUniversity of BergenBergenNorway

Personalised recommendations