Justification and active guideline implementation for spine radiography referrals in primary care

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.

Plain radiography has a role to play in current clinical practice in Western Switzerland

AIM

The aim of the study was to investigate the current role of conventional radiography examinations in Western Switzerland and the main clinical indications required to justify the use of this imaging examination.

METHODS

Ethical approval was obtained from Vaud Ethics committee (Ref 2020-00311). An online questionnaire was specifically designed and implemented on the data collection tool LimeSurvey composed of two parts: a) to characterise the participants' profile and their institutions and b) 169 projections for the different anatomical area (upper and lower limbs, pelvis, skull, spine, thorax, abdomen) were presented to collect data about the frequency and main clinical indications. Statistical analysis was performed using the software IBM SPSS® (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) version 26.

RESULTS

Radiographers from 60% (26/43) of the invited institutions participated in this survey, mainly from Vaud region. The upper and lower limbs were the most commonly examined by using conventional radiography mainly for trauma and degenerative disorders. The thorax was also an anatomical area commonly explored by X-rays, so were the spine (cervical and lumbar lateral). The skull radiographs were rarely performed in clinical practice and some of the projections were not being used, namely Hirtz, Tangential Nose Bones, Worms and Caldwell's views.

CONCLUSIONS

Plain radiography is being used in clinical practice mainly for appendicular skeleton studies and for trauma and degenerative pathologies. Adaptations in radiographers' education and training and other healthcare professionals are needed to provide the judicious use of data that radiographs can give to better manage the patients' imaging pathway.

Justification of radiological procedures: Radiographers' experiences at two public hospitals

BACKGROUND

Justification is a process conducted by the radiographer in consultation with the radiologist to evaluate radiological procedures ordered by doctors. The main purpose for justifying all radiologic procedures is to assess the benefits and risks of a requested radiographic procedure and determine whether exposure will continue. Furthermore, justification helps to prevent unnecessary radiation exposure and reduce the chances of harmful effects of ionizing radiation.

OBJECTIVES

The study aimed to explore the experiences of radiographers regarding the justification of radiological procedures at two public hospitals in Namibia METHODS: This study made use of a qualitative, exploratory design. A total number of 13 purposefully selected radiographers from radiology departments in two tertiary public - hospitals in Namibia were interviewed using a semi-structured interview guide and audio recorder. All interviews were conducted face-to-face until data saturation was achieved. Data were analysed using Atlas.ti Windows (version 9.0 using Tesch's 8-step method of qualitative data analysis to generate themes and subthemes.

FINDINGS

The participants experienced an enhancement of patient care through enhanced radiation protection and optimised patient care. They also experienced defunct communication systems through deficient communication between radiographers and referrers, professional role conflict and incomplete referrals.

CONCLUSION

The study revealed that the justification of radiological procedures was linked to both negative and positive experiences. Enhanced patient-centred care was a positive experience related to the radiographers' job responsibilities. The defunct communication support system was a negative experience as it related to the limited availability and utilisation of communication systems that are meant to enhance and support justification by radiographers. The study recommends an in-depth study to quantify unjustified procedures in these two hospital departments. Continuous professional development focusing on justification and referral protocols must be conducted jointly between radiographers and referrers to create awareness and a platform for shared decision-making models.

Students' knowledge, attitude and practices towards pressure ulcer prevention and management

Background

Student nurses provide nursing care to patients during clinical allocation, and their competence may affect the quality of care given to the patients. Good knowledge and positive attitudes enhance early detection for prevention and management of pressure ulcers.

Aim

To determine undergraduate nursing students' knowledge, attitude and practices (KAP) towards prevention and management of pressure ulcers.

Setting

A nursing education institution in Windhoek, Namibia.

Methods

A quantitative, cross-sectional research design was used to conveniently sample (n = 50) student nurses and collect data using a self-administered questionnaire. Data were analysed using the statistical software programme (SPSS) version 27. Descriptive frequencies were applied, and Fishers exact test was performed. A statistical value of p < 0.05 was considered significant.

Results

Fifty (n = 50) student nurses consented to participate in the study. Student nurses reported good levels of knowledge (n = 35; 70%), attitude (n = 39; 78%), practices (n = 47; 94%). There was no statistically significant association between demographic variables and the level of knowledge, attitudes and practices, p > 0.05.

Conclusion

Student nurses have good knowledge, positive attitudes and practices on prevention and management of pressure ulcers. By the implications, the study concludes that the nursing students will competently manage the pressure ulcers occurring in the clinical setting. An observational study is recommended to assess practices in the clinical setting.

Contribution

The findings of this study will help to close the gap in the implementation of standard operating procedures for the prevention and management of pressure ulcers.

Trends in guideline implementation: an updated scoping review

Background

Guidelines aim to support evidence-informed practice but are inconsistently used without implementation strategies. Our prior scoping review revealed that guideline implementation interventions were not selected and tailored based on processes known to enhance guideline uptake and impact. The purpose of this study was to update the prior scoping review.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, CINAHL, Scopus, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for studies published from 2014 to January 2021 that evaluated guideline implementation interventions. We screened studies in triplicate and extracted data in duplicate. We reported study and intervention characteristics and studies that achieved impact with summary statistics.

Results

We included 118 studies that implemented guidelines on 16 clinical topics. With regard to implementation planning, 21% of studies referred to theories or frameworks, 50% pre-identified implementation barriers, and 36% engaged stakeholders in selecting or tailoring interventions. Studies that employed frameworks (n=25) most often used the theoretical domains framework (28%) or social cognitive theory (28%). Those that pre-identified barriers (n=59) most often consulted literature (60%). Those that engaged stakeholders (n=42) most often consulted healthcare professionals (79%). Common interventions included educating professionals about guidelines (44%) and information systems/technology (41%). Most studies employed multi-faceted interventions (75%). A total of 97 (82%) studies achieved impact (improvements in one or more reported outcomes) including 10 (40% of 25) studies that employed frameworks, 28 (47.45% of 59) studies that pre-identified barriers, 22 (52.38% of 42) studies that engaged stakeholders, and 21 (70% of 30) studies that employed single interventions.

Conclusions

Compared to our prior review, this review found that more studies used processes to select and tailor interventions, and a wider array of types of interventions across the Mazza taxonomy. Given that most studies achieved impact, this might reinforce the need for implementation planning. However, even studies that did not plan implementation achieved impact. Similarly, even single interventions achieved impact. Thus, a future systematic review based on this data is warranted to establish if the use of frameworks, barrier identification, stakeholder engagement, and multi-faceted interventions are associated with impact.

Trial registration

The protocol was registered with Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/4nxpr) and published in JBI Evidence Synthesis.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13012-022-01223-6.

Impact on radiological practice of active guideline implementation of musculoskeletal guideline, as measured over a 12-month period

Background

An ever-increasing technological development in the field of radiology urges a need for guidelines to provide predictable and just health services. A musculoskeletal guideline was developed in Norway in 2014, without active implementation.

Purpose

To investigate the impact of active guideline implementation on the use of musculoskeletal diagnostic imaging most frequently encountered in general practice (pain in the neck, shoulders, lower back, and knees).

Material and Methods

The total number of outpatient radiological examinations across modalities registered at the Norwegian Health Economics Administration between January 2013 and February 2019 was assessed using an interrupted time series design.

Results

A 12% reduction in the total examination of Magnetic Resonance Imaging shoulder and knee, and x-ray lower back and shoulder was found at a significant level (p = 0.05). Stratified analysis (Magnetic Resonance Imaging examination as one group and x-ray examinations as the other) showed that this reduction mainly was due to the reduction in the use of Magnetic Resonance Imaging examinations (shoulder and knee) which was reduced by 24% at a significant level (p = 0.002), while x-ray examinations had no significant level change (p = 0.71). No other statistically significant changes were found.

Conclusion

The impact of the implementation on the use of imaging of the neck, shoulder, lower back, and knee is uncertain. Significant reductions were demonstrated in the use of some examinations in the intervention county, but similar effects were not seen when including a control group in the analysis. This indicates a diffusion of the implementation, or other interventions or events that affected both counties and occurred in the intervention period.

Effectiveness of Breast and Eye Shielding During Cervical Spine Radiography: An Experimental Study

Purpose

This study assessed the effectiveness of breast and eye shielding and measured the radiation dose to radiosensitive tissues (eyes and breasts) due to scatter radiation during cervical spine X-ray radiography examinations.

Methods

Using an anthropomorphic phantom, the scattered radiation dose was measured before and after the placement of the lead shield over the eyes and breasts in the anteroposterior (AP) and left lateral projection. A regression formula was utilized to determine the exposure. Mean values and standard deviation of breasts and eyes doses were calculated. The paired two sample t-test was used to compare the recorded dose before and after shielding placement.

Results

Radiation shielding of eyes and breasts during AP cervical spine X-ray decreased radiation dose to the breasts by 99.9% and to the left and right eye by 91% and 89%, respectively. For the left lateral cervical spine X-ray, the radiation dose decreased by 26% and 31% for the left and right eye, respectively, and by 23% and 99% for the left and right breast, respectively. A significant difference was noted comparing the dose before and after the implementing shielding on the eye and breast.

Conclusion

According to the results presented, the dose is significantly reduced, especially considering that they are not in the area of interest but are exposed to scatter radiation.

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.

What do we really know about the appropriateness of radiation emitting imaging for low back pain in primary and emergency care? A systematic review and meta-analysis of medical record reviews

BACKGROUND

Since 2000, guidelines have been consistent in recommending when diagnostic imaging for low back pain should be obtained to ensure patient safety and reduce unnecessary tests. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to determine the pooled proportion of CT and x-ray imaging of the lumbar spine that were considered appropriate in primary and emergency care.

METHODS

Pubmed, CINAHL, The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Embase were searched for synonyms of "low back pain", "guidelines", and "adherence" that were published after 2000. Titles, abstracts, and full texts were reviewed for inclusion with forward and backward tracking on included studies. Included studies had data extracted and synthesized. Risk of bias was performed on all studies, and GRADE was performed on included studies that provided data on CT and x-ray separately. A random effect, single proportion meta-analysis model was used.

RESULTS

Six studies were included in the descriptive synthesis, and 5 studies included in the meta-analysis. Five of the 6 studies assessed appropriateness of x-rays; two of the six studies assessed appropriateness of CTs. The pooled estimate for appropriateness of x-rays was 43% (95% CI: 30%, 56%) and the pooled estimate for appropriateness of CTs was 54% (95% CI: 51%, 58%). Studies did not report adequate information to fulfill the RECORD checklist (reporting guidelines for research using observational data). Risk of bias was high in 4 studies, moderate in one, and low in one. GRADE for x-ray appropriateness was low-quality and for CT appropriateness was very-low-quality.

CONCLUSION

While this study determined a pooled proportion of appropriateness for both x-ray and CT imaging for low back pain, there is limited confidence in these numbers due to the downgrading of the evidence using GRADE. Further research on this topic is needed to inform our understanding of x-ray and CT appropriateness in order to improve healthcare systems and decrease patient harms.

Imaging for low back pain: is clinical use consistent with guidelines? A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

The problem of imaging patients with low back pain (LBP) when it is not indicated is well recognized. The converse is also possible, although rarely considered. The extent of these two problems is presently unclear.

PURPOSE

This study aimed to estimate how commonly overuse, and also underuse, of imaging occurs in the management of LBP, and how appropriate use of imaging is assessed.

DESIGN

This is a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PATIENT SAMPLE

The sample comprised patients with LBP presenting to primary care.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Proportions of inappropriate referral, and inappropriate non-referral, for diagnostic imaging for LBP were the outcome measures.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL were searched from January 1, 1995 to December 17, 2017. Two authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data. Meta-analyses were performed where appropriate, and strength of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system.

RESULTS

Thirty-three studies were included. In patients referred for lumbar imaging, 34.8% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 27.1, 43.3) were judged inappropriate by the absence of red flags for serious pathology and 31.6% (95% CI: 28.3, 35.1) were judged inappropriate by the criteria of no clinical suspicion of pathology. In patients presenting for care, imaging was inappropriately performed in 27.7% of cases (95% CI: 21.3, 35.1) when judged by duration of episode, 9.0% of cases (95% CI: 7.4, 11.0) when judged by absence of red flags, and 7.0% (95% CI: 1.8, 23.3) when judged by no clinical suspicion of pathology. In patients presenting for care, imaging was not performed where appropriately indicated in 65.6% (95% CI: 51.8, 77.2) of patients who presented with red flags, and 60.8% (95% CI: 42.0, 76.8) with clinical suspicion of serious pathology.

CONCLUSIONS

Inappropriate imaging is common in LBP management, including both overuse in those where imaging is not indicated and underuse of imaging when it is indicated. Appreciating that both underuse and overuse can occur is fundamental to efforts to improve imaging practice to align with current guidelines and best evidence.

Development and conduction of an active re-implementation of the Norwegian musculoskeletal guidelines

Objective

Significant geographical variations in the use of diagnostic imaging have been demonstrated in Norway and elsewhere. Non-traumatic musculoskeletal conditions is one area where this has been demonstrated. A national musculoskeletal guideline was implemented in response by online publishing and postal dissemination in Norway in 2014 by national policy makers. The objective of our study was to develop and conduct an intervention as an active re-implementation of this guideline in one Norwegian county to investigate and facilitate guideline adherence. The development and implementation process is reported here, to facilitate understanding of the future evaluation results of this study.

Results

The consolidated framework for implementation research guided the intervention development and implementation. The implementation development was also based on earlier reported success factors in combination with interviews with general practitioners and radiologists regarding facilitators and barriers to guideline adherence. A combined implementation strategy was developed, including educational meetings, shortening of the guideline and easier access. All the aspects of the implementation strategy were adapted towards general practitioners, radiological personnel and the Norwegian Labor and Welfare Administration. Sixteen educational meetings were held, and six educational videos were made for those unable to attend, or where meetings could not be held.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13104-018-3894-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Barriers and facilitators for guideline adherence in diagnostic imaging: an explorative study of GPs' and radiologists' perspectives

Background

Diagnostic imaging has been a part of medicine for the last century. It has been difficult to implement guidelines in this field, and unwarranted imaging has been a frequent problem. Some work has been done to explain these phenomena separately. Identifying the barriers to and facilitators of guideline use has been one strategy. The aim of this study is to offer a more comprehensive explanation of deviations from the guideline by studying the two phenomena together.

Methods

Eight general practitioners and 10 radiologists from two counties in Norway agreed to semi-structured interviews. Topics covered in the interviews were knowledge of the guideline, barriers to and facilitators of guideline use, implementation of guidelines and factors that influence unwarranted imaging.

Results

Several barriers to and facilitators of guideline use were identified. Among these are lack of time, pressure from patients, and guidelines being too long, rigid or unclear. Facilitators of guideline use were easy accessibility and having the guidelines adapted to the target group. Some of the factors that influence unwarranted imaging are lack of time, pressure from patients and availability of imaging services.

Conclusion

There are similarities between the perceived barriers for guideline adherence and the perceived factors that influence unwarranted imaging. There may be a few reasons that explains the deviation from guidelines, and the amount of unwarranted imaging.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-3372-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Effectiveness of Implementation Strategies for Non-communicable Disease Guidelines in Primary Health Care

BACKGROUND

As clinical practice guidelines represent the most important evidence-based decision support tool, several strategies have been applied to improve their implementation into the primary health care system. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of intervention methods on the guideline adherence of primary care providers (PCPs).

METHODS

The studies selected through a systematic search in Medline and Embase were categorised according to intervention schemes and outcome indicator categories. Harvest plots and forest plots were applied to integrate results.

RESULTS

The 36 studies covered six intervention schemes, with single interventions being the most effective and distribution of materials the least. The harvest plot displayed 27 groups having no effect, 14 a moderate and 21 a strong effect on the outcome indicators in the categories of knowledge transfer, diagnostic behaviour, prescription, counselling and patient-level results. The forest plot revealed a moderate overall effect size of 0.22 [0.15, 0.29] where single interventions were more effective (0.27 [0.17, 0.38]) than multifaceted interventions (0.13 [0.06, 0.19]).

DISCUSSION

Guideline implementation strategies are heterogeneous. Reducing the complexity of strategies and tailoring to the local conditions and PCPs' needs may improve implementation and clinical practice.

Appropriate use of medical imaging in two Spanish public hospitals: a cross-sectional analysis

OBJECTIVES

To determine the appropriateness of medical imaging examinations involving radiation and to estimate the effective radiation dose and costs associated.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional retrospective study.

SETTING

Two Spanish public tertiary hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

2022 medical imaging tests were extracted from the radiology information system in February and March of 2014. MRI and ultrasound examinations were excluded.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Five outcomes were set independently by at least two researchers according to four guidelines: (1) appropriate; (2) inappropriate; (3) inappropriate due to repetition, if the timing to carry out next diagnostic tests was incorrect according to guidelines; (4) not adequately justified, if the referral form did not include enough clinical information to allow us to understand the patient's clinical condition; and (5) not included in the guidelines, if the referral could not be matched to a clinical scenario described in the guidelines. We estimated the prevalence of the five categories according to relevant clinical and sociodemographic variables and the effective radiation dose and costs for each category.

RESULTS

Approximately half of the imaging tests were deemed as appropriate (967, 47.8%) while one-third (634, 31.4%) were considered inappropriate. 19.6% of the effective dose and 25.2% of the cost were associated with inappropriate tests. Women were less likely than men to have an imaging test classified as appropriate (adjusted OR 0.70,95% CI 0.57 to 0.86). Imaging tests requested by general practitioners were less likely to be considered appropriate than those requested by central services (adjusted OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.93). Mammography and CT were more likely to be appropriate than conventional X-rays.

CONCLUSION

There was a significant frequency of inappropriateness, which resulted in a high percentage of associated effective radiation dose. Percentage of inappropriateness depends on sociodemographic and clinical characteristics such as sex, age, referral physician and medical imaging test.

Overtesting and undertesting in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Health systems are currently subject to unprecedented financial strains. Inappropriate test use wastes finite health resources (overuse) and delays diagnoses and treatment (underuse). As most patient care is provided in primary care, it represents an ideal setting to mitigate waste.

OBJECTIVE

To identify overuse and underuse of diagnostic tests in primary care.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES AND ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We searched MEDLINE and Embase from January 1999 to October 2017 for studies that measured the inappropriateness of any diagnostic test (measured against a national or international guideline) ordered for adult patients in primary care.

RESULTS

We included 357 171 patients from 63 studies in 15 countries. We extracted 103 measures of inappropriateness (41 underuse and 62 overuse) from included studies for 47 different diagnostic tests.The overall rate of inappropriate diagnostic test ordering varied substantially (0.2%-100%)%).17 tests were underused >50% of the time. Of these, echocardiography (n=4 measures) was consistently underused (between 54% and 89%, n=4). There was large variation in the rate of inappropriate underuse of pulmonary function tests (38%-78%, n=8).Eleven tests were inappropriately overused >50% of the time. Echocardiography was consistently overused (77%-92%), whereas inappropriate overuse of urinary cultures, upper endoscopy and colonoscopy varied widely, from 36% to 77% (n=3), 10%-54% (n=10) and 8%-52% (n=2), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

There is marked variation in the appropriate use of diagnostic tests in primary care. Specifically, the use of echocardiography (both underuse and overuse) is consistently poor. There is substantial variation in the rate of inappropriate underuse of pulmonary function tests and the overuse of upper endoscopy, urinary cultures and colonoscopy.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42016048832.