Radiologists’ responses to inadequate referrals
- 254 Downloads
To investigate radiologists’ responses to inadequate imaging referrals.
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.
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.
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.
KeywordsReferral and consultation Decision making Physician’s role Diagnostic imaging Questionnaires
We wish to thank the respondents for their participation. This work was supported by grants from Oslo University College.
- 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
- 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.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
- 12.Royal College of Radiologists (2007) Making the best use of clinical radiology services. Referral guidelines, 6th edn. RCR, LondonGoogle Scholar
- 13.European Commission (2001) Radiation protection 118. Referral guidelines for imaging. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
- 14.American College of Radiology (2008) ACR appropriateness criteria. http://www.acr.org/ac
- 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.Taraldset A (2008) Statistics and research on physicians in Norway in English. http://www.legeforeningen.no/id/8449 Accessed 2 January 2008
- 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.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.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
- 42.American College of Radiologists (2005) ACR practice guideline for communication of diagnostic imaging findings. ACR, Reston, VAGoogle Scholar