Reducing Inappropriate Lumbar Spine MRI for Low Back Pain: Radiology Support, Communication and Alignment Network

Assessing MRI referrals' appropriateness for low back pain post a radiology-initiated intervention

INTRODUCTION

This study evaluated a pilot intervention to reduce low-value Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) referrals for Low Back Pain (LBP).

METHODS

This before-after intervention study analysed MRI referrals for LBP at two private imaging centres in Norway. MRI referrals for LBP obtained before and after an intervention of information campaigns and sending a return letter to clinicians for declined referrals were evaluated on information, quality, and justification rates. Four radiologists and two radiographers assessed the referrals. A point system was used to calculate referral quality. Each referral was given a score 'good' when rated above 5.5 and 'poor' below 2.5. Justification was based on assessors categorised rating as justified, unjustified or need more information. Stata Statistical Software (Release 18) was used for analysis. A mixed model analysed variations of the referrals pre- and post-intervention. A p-value of <.05 in variations was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

A total n = 300 patients' referrals (150 referrals pre- and post-intervention) were collected and assessed. Post-intervention, 68% of referrals were justified, up from 63% pre-intervention. The assessment showed a 4% decrease in referrals with poor scores and a 2% increase in those rated as good or intermediate quality post-intervention. These changes were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

It is important to state that it was not possible in our study to identify the subgroup of referrals that are known to be from clinicians who had received a return letter, although the information campaign targeted all referrers. Despite the limitations our findings suggest that providing reasons for declined referrals can serve as an educational tool for clinicians and contribute to the reduction of low value MRI for LBP.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Radiology department initiatives that raise awareness and offer referral criteria guidance to clinicians can serve as valuable educational tools, and further emphasize the importance of providing comprehensive information in MRI referrals for LBP.

Impact and effect of imaging referral guidelines on patients and radiology services: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this systematic review was to offer a comprehensive overview and explore the associated outcomes from imaging referral guidelines on various key stakeholders, such as patients and radiologists.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An electronic database search was conducted in Medline, Embase and Web of Science to retrieve citations published between 2013 and 2023. The search was constructed using medical subject headings and keywords. Only full-text articles and reviews written in English were included. The quality of the included papers was assessed using the mixed methods appraisal tool. A narrative synthesis was undertaken for the selected articles.

RESULTS

The search yielded 4384 records. Following the abstract, full-text screening, and removal of duplication, 31 studies of varying levels of quality were included in the final analysis. Imaging referral guidelines from the American College of Radiology were most commonly used. Clinical decision support systems were the most evaluated mode of intervention, either integrated or standalone. Interventions showed reduced patient radiation doses and waiting times for imaging. There was a general reduction in radiology workload and utilisation of diagnostic imaging. Low-value imaging utilisation decreased with an increase in the appropriateness of imaging referrals and ratings and cost savings. Clinical effectiveness was maintained during the intervention period without notable adverse consequences.

CONCLUSION

Using evidence-based imaging referral guidelines improves the quality of healthcare and outcomes while reducing healthcare costs. Imaging referral guidelines are one essential component of improving the value of radiology in the healthcare system.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

There is a need for broader dissemination of imaging referral guidelines to healthcare providers globally in tandem with the harmonisation of the application of these guidelines to improve the overall value of radiology within the healthcare system.

KEY POINTS

The application of imaging referral guidelines has an impact and effect on patients, radiologists, and health policymakers. The adoption of imaging referral guidelines in clinical practice can impact healthcare costs and improve healthcare quality and outcomes. Implementing imaging referral guidelines contributes to the attainment of value-based radiology.

MRI order appropriateness for chronic neck pain: Comparison of ordering practices and treatment outcomes for primary care physicians and specialists

Chronic neck pain is a common reason for doctor visits in the United States. This diagnosis can be evaluated through patient history, physical examination, and judicious use of radiographs. However, possible inappropriate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) ordering persists. We hypothesized that no difference in ordering practices, ordering appropriateness, and subsequent intervention would be appreciated regarding physician specialty, location, patient characteristics, and history and physical exam findings. A multisite retrospective review of cervical spine MRI between 2014 and 2018 was performed. A total of 332 patients were included. Statistical analysis was used to assess MRI order appropriateness, detail of history and physical exam findings, and intervention decision-making among different specialties. If significant differences were found, multiple linear regression was performed to evaluate the association of MRI order appropriateness regarding physician specialty, location, patient characteristics and history, and physical exam findings. The significance level for all tests was set at <0.05 Orthopedic surgeons ordered MRIs most appropriately with an average American College of Radiology (ACR) score of 8.4 (p < 0.005). Orthopedic surgeons had more comprehensive physical exams as compared to the remaining specialties. The decision for intervention did not vary by physician specialty or ACR score, except for patients of pain medicine physicians who received pain management (p = 0.000). Orthopedic surgeons utilize MRI most appropriately and have more comprehensive physical exams. These findings suggest a need for increased physician education on what indicates an appropriate MRI order to improve the use of resources and further protect patient risk-benefit profiles. Further research elucidating factors to minimize negative findings in "appropriate" MRIs is indicated. Clinical significance: More detailed physical exams may lead to more appropriately ordered MRIs, subsequently resulting in surgery or procedures being performed when appropriately indicated. This suggests the need for increased physician education on when MRI ordering is appropriate for chronic neck pain to improve the use of resources and further protect patient risk-benefit profiles.

The Rationality to Requesting in-ward Magnetic Resonance Imaging Investigation

Background

Magnetic Resonance imaging (MRI) is a valuable diagnostic tool by its non-invasive/non-ionizing nature.

Objective

This study aims to determine justification of MRI in hospitalized patients at a tertiary provincial referent medical center in a one-year period.

Material and Methods

In the present retrospective and descriptive cross-sectional study, 438 admitted patients referred for MRI during 2017 were selected using systematic random sampling. The age, gender, investigated organ, the specialty of requesting physician, MRI with and without contrast, MRI diagnostic outcome were collected using checklists. Descriptive statistics and chi-square test were used for data analysis.

Results

The mean age of the patients was 42±26 years-old and female represented 53% of enrolled patients. The most and less prevalent investigated organs were the cerebrum and the orbit. After excluding cancer diagnosis, cancer staging, and therapeutic follow-up exams, MRI request was oriented in 64.3% and 77.2% of positive results was concordant with aforementioned diagnostic orientation (P<0.001). Oriented diagnostic MRI requesting is influenced by age, medical specialists and, investigated organ (P<0.001). The positive MRI is influenced significantly by oriented MRI request, gender, medical specialists and investigated organ (P<0.001). The diagnosis concordance of MRI is influenced significantly by oriented MRI request, medical specialists and investigated organ (P<0.001).

Conclusion

Appropriate implementation of medical imaging requires boosting employed rationality by the concerned physicians. The current suboptimal results to requesting MRI rationality should mandate supplementary educational programs as to incite the medical corpus more closely implementing the published medical practice guidelines.

Development of lumbar spine MRI referrals vetting models using machine learning and deep learning algorithms: Comparison models vs healthcare professionals

INTRODUCTION

Referrals vetting is a necessary daily task to ensure the appropriateness of radiology referrals. Vetting requires extensive clinical knowledge and may challenge those responsible. This study aims to develop AI models to automate the vetting process and to compare their performance with healthcare professionals.

METHODS

1020 lumbar spine MRI referrals were collected retrospectively from two Irish hospitals. Three expert MRI radiographers classified the referrals into indicated or not indicated for scanning based on iRefer guidelines. The reference label for each referral was assigned based on the majority voting. The corpus was divided into two datasets, one for the models' development with 920 referrals, and one included 100 referrals used as a held-out for the final comparison of the AI models versus national and international MRI radiographers. Three traditional models were developed: SVM, LR, RF, and two deep neural models, including CNN and Bi-LSTM. For the traditional models, four vectorisation techniques applied: BoW, bigrams, trigrams, and TF-IDF. A textual data augmentation technique was applied to investigate the influence of data augmentation on the models' performances.

RESULTS

RF with BoW achieved the highest AUC reaching 0.99. CNN model outperformed Bi-LSTM with AUC = 0.98. With the augmented dataset, the performance significantly improved with an increase in F1 scores ranging from 1% to 7%. All models outperformed the national and international radiographers when compared on the hold-out dataset.

CONCLUSION

The models assigned the referrals' appropriateness with higher accuracies than the national and international radiographers. Applying data augmentation significantly improved the models' performances.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

The outcomes suggest that the use of AI for checking referrals' eligibility could serve as a supporting tool to improve the referrals' management in radiology departments.

Agreement Between International Radiologists on the Appropriateness and Urgency in Lumbar Spine MRI Referrals

Purpose

To determine how radiologists across health-care jurisdictions internationally assess the appropriateness and urgency levels of lumbar spine Magnetic Resonance Imaging MRI referrals.

Patients and Methods

Clinical information was extracted from 203 lumbar spine MRI referrals. Texts were divided into 10 datasets and embedded into a software to facilitate the classification process. Participant radiologists were recruited at the Image Perception Lab, at the Radiological Society of North America Congress, 2019 and through the institution radiology network. Radiologists were asked if they use referral guidelines in their practices. Radiologists assigned appropriateness and urgency levels based on the referral text. Appropriateness level descriptors were: indicated, indicated but needs more information or not indicated. Urgency levels were categorized: urgent, semi-urgent, or not urgent. All cases containing neurological symptoms with/without red flags were extracted and exact agreement between radiologists’ responses on the indication status was calculated.

Results

Seventy radiologists from 25 countries participated; 42% of participants indicated non-use of referral guidelines. Poor-moderate radiology agreements were recorded for appropriateness and referral urgency level decisions. 79.6% of responses indicated that cases containing neurological symptoms with/without red flags were indicated for scanning.

Conclusion

Despite referral guidelines promotion, nearly half of participants stated non-usage. Subsequently, a varied agreement levels were found in assigning the appropriateness of the referrals. Appropriateness of referrals with neurological symptoms (with/without red flags) recorded good agreement.

Exploring the impact of diagnostic imaging decision support embedded in an electronic referral solution on the appropriate ordering of magnetic resonance imaging for patients with knee pain: a retrospective chart review

RATIONAL AND OBJECTIVE

Requests for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) exams have notably increased in Canada. However, many of these exams may not always be indicated. The Joint Department of Medical Imaging and the eReferral Program have worked collaboratively to embed an integrated clinical decision support (DS) tool within the eReferral process for diagnostic imaging requests. This retrospective chart review aimed to assess the necessity of MRI exams for knee pain patients at the point of referral in relation to the referral method (no DS tools within fax- vs. DS tools within eReferral).

METHODS

Seven hundred and seventeen medical charts of routine MRI referral requests to an Ontario Hospital for patients with knee complaints were reviewed during the study period. The necessity of the MRI exams was evaluated using the supporting algorithm and knee pathway appropriateness guidelines. MRI exams were considered necessary if requested for symptoms or signs that align with best-practice standards, complemented with sound clinical assessment or history of a radiography scan before ordering an MRI.

RESULTS

In general, MRI requests made through eReferral were 13.289 times more likely to be necessary orders than those made through fax. The likelihood of referring patients for a necessary MRI exam was higher for eReferral than fax for the year 2018/2019 (53.0% vs. 26.8%, P < 0.001) and for the year 2019/2020 (58.5% vs. 16.3%, P < 0.001). In addition, the rate of ordering X-ray as the proper initial imaging scan for patients presenting with knee pain has steadily increased by 10% over the year for users of the eReferral platform compared to a decrease of 7% for those using fax.

CONCLUSION

Our findings highlight the positive impact of integrating DS tools at the point of referral in supporting the ordering of necessary MRI scans, suggesting that service re-design and implementation of automated assistive technology services would impact patient care.

Appropriateness of referrals from primary care for lumbar MRI

Background

International guidelines do not recommend routine imaging, including magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and seek to guide clinicians only to refer for imaging based on specific indications. Despite this, several studies show an increase in the use of MRI among patients with low back pain (LBP) and an imbalance between appropriate versus inappropriate use of MRI for LBP. This study aimed to investigate to what extent referrals from general practice for lumbar MRI complied with clinical guideline recommendations in a Danish setting, contributing to the understanding and approaches to lumbar MRI for all clinicians managing LBP in the primary sector.

Materials and methods

From 2014 to 2018, all referrals for lumbar MRI were included from general practitioners in the Central Denmark Region for diagnostic imaging at a public regional hospital. A modified version of the American College of Radiology Imaging Appropriateness Criteria for LBP was used to classify referrals as appropriate or inappropriate, based on the unstructured text in the GPs’ referrals. Appropriate referrals included fractures, cancer, symptoms persisting for more than 6 weeks of non-surgical treatment, previous surgery, candidate for surgery or suspicion of cauda equina. Inappropriate referrals were sub-classified as lacking information about previous non-surgical treatment and duration.

Results

Of the 3772 retrieved referrals for MRI of the lumbar spine, 55% were selected and a total of 2051 referrals were categorised. Approximately one quarter (24.5%) were categorised as appropriate, and 75.5% were deemed inappropriate. 51% of the inappropriate referrals lacked information about previous non-surgical treatment, and 49% had no information about the duration of non-surgical treatment. Apart from minor yearly fluctuations, there was no change in the distribution of appropriate and inappropriate MRI referrals from 2014 to 2018.

Conclusion

The majority of lumbar MRI referrals (75.5%) from general practitioners for lumbar MRI did not fulfil the ACR Imaging Appropriateness Criteria for LBP based on the unstructured text of their referrals. There is a need for referrers to include all guideline-relevant information in referrals for imaging. More research is needed to determine whether this is due to patients not fulfilling guideline recommendations or simply the content of the referrals.

Interventions to reduce low-value imaging - a systematic review of interventions and outcomes

BACKGROUND

It is estimated that 20-50% of all radiological examinations are of low value. Many attempts have been made to reduce the use of low-value imaging. However, the comparative effectiveness of interventions to reduce low-value imaging is unclear. Thus, the objective of this systematic review was to provide an overview and evaluate the outcomes of interventions aimed at reducing low-value imaging.

METHODS

An electronic database search was completed in Medline - Ovid, Embase-Ovid, Scopus, and Cochrane Library for citations between 2010 and 2020. The search was built from medical subject headings for Diagnostic imaging/Radiology, Health service misuse or medical overuse, and Health planning. Keywords were used for the concept of reduction and avoidance. Reference lists of included articles were also hand-searched for relevant citations. Only articles written in English, German, Danish, Norwegian, Dutch, and Swedish were included. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used to appraise the quality of the included articles. A narrative synthesis of the final included articles was completed.

RESULTS

The search identified 15,659 records. After abstract and full-text screening, 95 studies of varying quality were included in the final analysis, containing 45 studies found through hand-searching techniques. Both controlled and uncontrolled before-and-after studies, time series, chart reviews, and cohort studies were included. Most interventions were aimed at referring physicians. Clinical practice guidelines (n = 28) and education (n = 28) were most commonly evaluated interventions, either alone or in combination with other components. Multi-component interventions were often more effective than single-component interventions showing a reduction in the use of low-value imaging in 94 and 74% of the studies, respectively. The most addressed types of imaging were musculoskeletal (n = 26), neurological (n = 23) and vascular (n = 16) imaging. Seventy-seven studies reported reduced low-value imaging, while 3 studies reported an increase.

CONCLUSIONS

Multi-component interventions that include education were often more effective than single-component interventions. The contextual and cultural factors in the health care systems seem to be vital for successful reduction of low-value imaging. Further research should focus on assessing the impact of the context in interventions reducing low-value imaging and how interventions can be adapted to different contexts.

The Impact of Choosing Wisely Interventions on Low-Value Medical Services: A Systematic Review

Policy Points Dissemination of Choosing Wisely guidelines alone is unlikely to reduce the use of low-value health services. Interventions by health systems to implement Choosing Wisely guidelines can reduce the use of low-value services. Multicomponent interventions targeting clinicians are currently the most effective types of interventions.

CONTEXT

Choosing Wisely aims to reduce the use of unnecessary, low-value medical services through development of recommendations related to service utilization. Despite the creation and dissemination of these recommendations, evidence shows low-value services are still prevalent. This paper synthesizes literature on interventions designed to reduce medical care identified as low value by Choosing Wisely and evaluates which intervention characteristics are most effective.

METHODS

We searched peer-reviewed and gray literature from the inception of Choosing Wisely in 2012 through June 2019 to identify interventions in the United States motivated by or using Choosing Wisely recommendations. We also included studies measuring the impact of Choosing Wisely on its own, without interventions. We developed a coding guide and established coding agreement. We coded all included articles for types of services targeted, components of each intervention, results of the intervention, study type, and, where applicable, study quality. We measured the success rate of interventions, using chi-squared tests or Wald tests to compare across interventions.

FINDINGS

We reviewed 131 articles. Eighty-eight percent of interventions focused on clinicians only; 48% included multiple components. Compared with dissemination of Choosing Wisely recommendations only, active interventions were more likely to generate intended results (65% vs 13%, p < 0.001) and, among those, interventions with multiple components were more successful than those with one component (77% vs 47%, p = 0.002). The type of services targeted did not matter for success. Clinician-based interventions were more effective than consumer-based, though there is a dearth of studies on consumer-based interventions. Only 17% of studies included a control arm.

CONCLUSIONS

Interventions built on the Choosing Wisely recommendations can be effective at changing practice patterns to reduce the use of low-value care. Interventions are more effective when targeting clinicians and using more than one component. There is a need for high-quality studies that include active controls.

Unnecessary use of radiology studies in the diagnosis of inguinal hernias: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

The diagnosis of inguinal hernias is predominantly based on physical exam, although imaging may be used in select cases. The objective of this study was to determine the frequency of unnecessary imaging used in the diagnosis of inguinal hernias.

METHODS

Patients who underwent elective inguinal hernia repair at a large academic health system in the U.S. from 2010 to 2017 were included. Within this cohort, we identified patients who received imaging 6 months prior to surgery. Through chart review of physical exam findings and imaging indications, we categorized patients into four imaging categories: unrelated, necessary, unnecessary, and borderline. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to identify factors associated with receipt of unnecessary imaging.

RESULTS

Of 2162 patients who underwent inguinal hernia surgery, 249 patients had related imaging studies 6 months prior to surgery. 47.0% of patients received unnecessary imaging. 66.9% and 33.1% of unnecessary studies were ultrasounds and CT scans, respectively. 24.5% of patients had necessary studies, while 28.5% had studies with borderline indications. On multivariable analysis, having a BMI between 25.0 and 29.9 kg/m2 was associated with receipt of unnecessary studies. Primary care providers and ED physicians were more likely to order unnecessary imaging.

CONCLUSIONS

Nearly 50% of all patients who receive any related imaging prior to surgery had potentially unnecessary diagnostic radiology studies. This not only exposes patients to avoidable risks, but also places a significant economic burden on patients and our already-strained health system.

Categorisation of lumbar spine MRI referrals in Denmark as compliant or non-compliant to international imaging guidelines: an inter-rater reliability study

BACKGROUND

Managing low back pain (LBP) often involves MRI despite the fact that international guidelines do not recommend routine imaging. To allow us to explore the topic and use this knowledge in further research, a reliable method to review the MRI referrals is needed. Consequently, this study aimed to assess the inter-rater reliability of a method evaluating lumbar spine MRI referrals' appropriateness.

METHODS

Four inexperienced students (chiropractic master's students) and a senior clinician (chiropractor) were included as independent raters in this inter-rater reliability study. Lumbar spine MRI referrals from primary care on patients (> 18 years) with LBP with or without leg pain were included. The referrals were classified using a modified version of the American College of Radiology (ACR) imaging appropriateness criteria for LBP. Categories of appropriate referrals included; fractures, cancer, previous surgery, candidate for surgery or suspicion of cauda equina. Inappropriate referrals included lacking information on previous non-surgical treatment, no word on non-surgical treatment duration, or "other reasons" for inappropriate referrals. After two rounds of training and consensus sessions, 50 lumbar spine MRI referrals were reviewed independently by the five raters. Inter-rater reliability was quantified using unweighted Kappa statistics, and the observed agreement was calculated with both a pairwise comparison and an overall five-rater comparison.

RESULTS

Inter-rater reliability was substantial, with a Kappa value for appropriate vs. inappropriate referrals of 0.76 (95% CI: 0.55-0.89). When six and eight subcategories were evaluated, the Kappa values were 0.77 (95% CI: 0.58-0.91) and 0.82 (95% CI: 0.72-0.92), respectively. The overall percentage of agreement for appropriate and inappropriate referrals was 92% and ranged from 88 to 98% for the pairwise comparisons of the five raters' results. For the six and eight subcategories, the overall agreement was 92 and 88%, respectively, ranging from 88 to 98% and 84-92%, respectively, for the pairwise comparisons.

CONCLUSION

The inter-rater reliability of the evaluation of the appropriateness of lumbar spine MRI referrals, according to the modified ACR-appropriateness criteria, was found to range from substantial to almost perfect and can be used for research and quality assurance purposes.

An evaluation of MRI lumbar spine scans within a community-based diagnostic setting

BACKGROUND

With an ongoing move towards more management of patients within the community setting, demand for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is increasing and commonly used in lower back conditions. There is well recorded overuse of MRI in this scenario which goes against evidence-based practice and adds to rising healthcare costs.

METHODS

The study was a retrospective review of lumbar spine MRI scans performed within a community-based setting over an 18-month period. The review took a randomised purposive sample of patients (n = 450); looking at adherence to, and relevance of, guidelines in managing lower back conditions. Data extracted provided information on demographics and prevalence of clinical presentation and report observations.

RESULTS

There is variation in practice and utlisation of MRI with this patient group which warrants further exploration. Results support inappropriate use, lacking adherence to guidelines and pathways, leading to unnecessary imaging. 46% of referrals were considered clinically justified with 38% of report findings considered abnormal and of clinical relevance. Chi-square and binomial logistic regression were used to assess the significance and relationship of any factors on referral justification and report outcome. No difference was found between type of referrer, with patient age and leg symptoms being significant factors.

CONCLUSION

The study highlights the opportunity to integrate better referral criteria to improve referral quality, its suitability and the relevance of final reports. In the current climate this would help manage appropriate use of imaging resources during the post COVID-19 pandemic recovery phase, as well as support recommendations regarding diagnostic reform and a move towards more community-based diagnostics.

To Sustain or not to Sustain: Varying Educational Sessions on Advanced Imaging of Low Back Pain and R-SCAN

PURPOSE

The aim is to present our long-term institutional experience on the use of the American College of Radiology's (ACR's) Radiology Support, Communication, and Alignment Network (R-SCAN) via educational presentations and guideline dissemination in sustaining lumbar spine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) appropriateness for low back pain.

METHODS

Initial educational presentations on appropriate use criteria for lumbar spine MRI were given to referring providers at three county clinics in April and May of 2016. A second educational refresher was given to the same 3 clinics in November 2017: Clinic A received guideline dissemination, Clinic B served as a control group, and Clinic C received a refresher presentation. Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare the monthly MRI referral rate and ACR Appropriateness Criteria rating.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in monthly referral rates and ACR Appropriateness Criteria after the second education. Monthly referral rates were significantly lower than the baseline rates before the first education for Clinic A (P <0.001), C (P = 0.004), and the combined total (P = 0.002). ACR Appropriateness Criteria ratings were significantly higher than the baseline ratings before the first education for Clinic C (P = 0.002) and the combined total (P = 0.024).

DISCUSSION

After the second education, inappropriateness, and referral rates remained significantly lower when compared to rates before but not after the first education. Radiology Support, Communication, and Alignment Network is an invaluable online tool for both radiology practices and referring clinicians to become familiar in preparing to comply with the Protecting Access to Medicare Act and satisfying the Improvement Activities category of the Merit Based Incentive Payment Systems.

Assessment of the Radiology Support, Communication and Alignment Network to Reduce Medical Imaging Overutilization: A Multipractice Cohort Study

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to determine whether participation in Radiology Support, Communication and Alignment Network (R-SCAN) results in a reduction of inappropriate imaging in a wide range of real-world clinical environments.

METHODS

This quality improvement study used imaging data from 27 US academic and private practices that completed R-SCAN projects between January 25, 2015, and August 8, 2018. Each project consisted of baseline, educational (intervention), and posteducational phases. Baseline and posteducational imaging cases were rated as high, medium, or low value on the basis of validated ACR Appropriateness Criteria®. Four cohorts were generated: a comprehensive cohort that included all eligible practices and three topic-specific cohorts that included practices that completed projects of specific Choosing Wisely topics (pulmonary embolism, adnexal cyst, and low back pain). Changes in the proportion of high-value cases after R-SCAN intervention were assessed for each cohort using generalized estimating equation logistic regression, and changes in the number of low-value cases were analyzed using Poisson regression.

RESULTS

Use of R-SCAN in the comprehensive cohort resulted in a greater proportion of high-value imaging cases (from 57% to 79%; odds ratio, 2.69; 95% confidence interval, 1.50-4.86; P = .001) and 345 fewer low-value cases after intervention (incidence rate ratio, 0.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.29-0.70; P < .001). Similar changes in proportion of high-value cases and number of low-value cases were found for the pulmonary embolism, adnexal cyst, and low back pain cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

R-SCAN participation was associated with a reduced likelihood of inappropriate imaging and is thus a promising tool to enhance the quality of patient care and promote wise use of health care resources.

Defining and measuring imaging appropriateness in low back pain studies: a scoping review

PURPOSE

Patients with low back pain (LBP) rarely have serious underlying pathology but frequently undergo inappropriate imaging. A range of guidelines and red flag features are utilised to characterise appropriate imaging. This scoping review explores how LBP imaging appropriateness is determined and calculated in studies of primary care practice.

METHODS

This scoping review builds upon a previous meta-analysis, incorporating articles identified that were published since 2014, with an updated search to capture articles published since the original search. Electronic databases were searched, and citation lists of included papers were reviewed. Inclusion criteria were studies assessing adult LBP imaging appropriateness in a primary care setting. Twenty-three eligible studies were identified.

RESULTS

A range of red flag features were utilised to determine imaging appropriateness. Most studies considered appropriateness in a binary manner, by the presence of any red flag feature. Ten guidelines were referenced, with 7/23 (30%) included studies amending or not referencing any guideline. The method for calculating the proportion of inappropriate imaging varied. Ten per cent of the studies used the total number of patients presenting with LBP as the denominator, suggesting most studies overestimated the rate of inappropriate imaging, and did not capture where imaging is not performed for clinically suspicious LBP.

CONCLUSION

Greater clarity is needed on how we define and measure imaging appropriateness for LBP, which also accounts for the problem of failing to image when indicated. An internationally agreed methodology for imaging appropriateness studies would ultimately lead to an improvement in the care delivered to patients. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Reduction in inappropriate MRI knee studies after implementation of an appropriateness checklist: Experience at a tertiary care centre

PURPOSE

To evaluate reduction in inappropriate knee MRI requests following implementation of a mandatory knee MRI appropriateness checklist.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed at a single tertiary care centre. A knee MRI appropriateness checklist was developed based on the ACR Appropriateness Criteria and adherence from referring physicians was mandatory. Reports from 200 consecutive knee MRI studies one year prior to implementation were compared to 200 consecutive knee MRI studies following implementation. The presence of moderate or greater osteoarthritis on MRI reports was used as a marker for inappropriate knee MRIs. Patient demographics, wait times, number of knee MRIs, and number of all MRIs at our centre over a six month period post-intervention and pre-intervention were recorded. Differences between pre-intervention and post-intervention presence of moderate or greater osteoarthritis, patient demographics, wait times, and number of MRIs analyzed.

RESULTS

A significant decrease was found in moderate or greater grade osteoarthritis following intervention, decreasing from 36.5% to 20.5% (73 studies versus 41 studies, p = 0.023). Of these, the most profound decrease occurred in studies with severe osteoarthritis, with an 80 % decrease (35 studies versus 7 studies, p < 0.001). Post intervention, 48 % fewer knee MRIs were performed in the same time interval (652 studies pre-intervention versus 336 studies post intervention, p < 0.001). No significant differences were found in the patient demographics.

CONCLUSION

Mandatory knee MRI appropriateness checklists are associated with a significant reduction in the number of inappropriate studies performed. Follow up studies will be required to assess long-term impact in a larger population.