Dataset Information

Radiographers' actions and challenges when confronted with inappropriate radiology referrals.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To explore radiographers' actions toward inappropriate referrals and hindrances to assessing referrals.

Methods

An online survey was distributed to radiographers via the International Society of Radiographers and Radiological Technologists (ISRRT) networks. The questionnaire consisted of 5-point Likert scale questions on radiographers' actions to supplement referral information, actions for unjustified referrals and hindrances to referral assessment. The questionnaire was validated using a test-retest reliability analysis. Kappa values ≥ 0.6 were accepted. SPSS software was used for data analysis and chi-square tests to compare subgroups.

Results

Total responses received were 279. The most reported actions to supplement missing referral information were to ask the patient or relative, examine the body region of concern and check medical records (73%, 70%, 67%, responded often/always, respectively). The actions when confronted with unjustified referrals were reported equally to consult the radiologist, referring clinician and radiographer (69-68% often/always responses). The hindering factors ranked high (agreed/strongly agreed responses) pertained to inadequate information in referral forms (83%), ineffective communication among healthcare professionals (79%), lack of training (70%) and allocated time (61%). Statistically significant associations were observed for a few actions and hindrances with education level, modality of practice and responsibility to screen imaging referrals.

Conclusion

Radiographers consult colleagues about suspected unjustified referrals. Effective communication pathways, training and time allocation to improve radiographers' skills to assess referrals may enhance appropriate imaging and delivery of quality patient care.

Key points

• Radiographers' actions of supplementing missing information in radiology referrals facilitate provision of high-quality health services. • Radiographers' strategy when confronted with inappropriate referrals is to consult radiologists and referring clinicians. • Better inter-professional communication and organisation of tasks can facilitate radiographers' participation in referral assessment to ensure appropriate imaging.

SUBMITTER: Chilanga CC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8732969 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundInappropriate prescribing of diagnostic procedures leads to overdiagnosis, overtreatment and resource waste in healthcare systems. Effective strategies to measure and to overcome inappropriateness are essential to increasing the value and sustainability of care. We aimed to describe the determinants of inappropriate reporting of the clinical question and of inappropriate imaging and endoscopy referrals through an analysis of general practitioners' (GP) referral forms in the province of Reggio Emilia, Italy.MethodsA clinical audit was conducted on routinely collected referral forms of all GPs of Reggio Emilia province. All prescriptions for gastroscopy, colonoscopy, neurological and musculoskeletal computerised tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) from 2012 to 2017 were included. The appropriateness of referral forms was assessed using Clinika VAP software, which combines semantic analysis of clinical questions and available metadata. Local protocols agreed on by all physicians defined criteria of appropriateness. Two multilevel logistic models were used to identify multiple predictors of inappropriateness of referral forms and to analyse variability among GPs, primary care subdistricts and healthcare districts.ResultsOverall, 37% of referral forms were classified as inappropriate, gastroscopy and CT showed higher proportions of inappropriate referrals compared to colonoscopy and MRI. Inappropriateness increased with patient age for CT and MRI; for gastroscopy, it was lower for patients aged 65-84 compared to those younger, and for colonoscopy, it was higher for older patients. Fee exemptions were associated with inappropriateness in MRI referral forms. The effect of GPs' practice organization was consistent across all tests, showing higher inappropriateness for primary care medical networks than in primary care medical groups. Male GPs were associated with inappropriateness in endoscopy, and older GPs were associated with inappropriateness in musculoskeletal CT. While there was moderate variability in the inappropriate prescribing among GPs, there was not among the healthcare districts or primary care subdistricts.ConclusionsRoutinely collected data and IT tools can be useful to identify and monitor diagnostic procedures at high risk of inappropriate prescribing. Assessing determinants of inappropriate referral makes it possible to tailor educational and organizational interventions to those who need them.

Project description:BackgroundThe ability for patients to directly view their radiology images through secure electronic portals is rare in the American health care system. We previously surveyed patients within our health system and found that a large majority wanted to view their own radiology images online, and we have since implemented this new feature.ObjectiveWe aim to understand patient experiences, opinions, and actions taken after viewing their own radiology images online.MethodsWe emailed a web-based survey to patients who recently viewed their radiology images via our electronic patient portal.ResultsWe sent 1825 surveys to patients and received 299 responses (response rate 16.4%). Patients reported a favorable experience (258/299, 86.3% agree) viewing their radiology images online. Patients found value in reading their radiology reports (288/299, 96.3% agree) and viewing their images (267/299, 89.3% agree). Overall, patients felt that accessing and viewing their radiology images online increased their understanding of their medical condition (258/299, 82.9%), made them feel more in control and reassured (237/299, 79.2% and 220/299, 73.6%, respectively), and increased levels of trust (214/299, 71.6%). Only 6.4% (19/299) of the patients indicated concerns with finding errors, 6.4% (19/299) felt that viewing their images online made them worry more, and 7% (21/299) felt confused when viewing their images online. Of patients who viewed their images online, 45.2% (135/299) took no action with their images, 32.8% (98/299) saved a copy for their records, 25.4% (76/299) shared them with their doctor, and 14.7% (44/299) shared them with another doctor for a second opinion. A total of 9 patients (3%) shared their radiology images on Facebook, Instagram, or both, primarily to inform family and friends. Approximately 10.4% (31/299) of the patients had questions about their radiology images after viewing them online, with the majority (20/31, 65%) seeking out a doctor, and far fewer (5/31, 16%) choosing to ask a family member about their images. Finally, respondents viewed their images online using 1 or more devices, including computers, smartphones, tablets, or a combination of these devices. Approximately 26.7% (103/385) of the responses noted technical difficulties, with the highest incidence rate occurring with smartphones.ConclusionsWe report the first known survey results from patients who viewed their own radiology images through a web-based portal. Patients reported high levels of satisfaction and increased levels of trust, autonomy, reassurance, and medical understanding. Only a small minority of patients expressed anxiety or confusion. We suggest that patient access to radiology images, such as patient access to radiology reports, is highly desired by patients and is operationally practical. Other health care institutions should consider offering patients access to their radiology images online in the pursuit of information transparency.

Project description:Multisectoral actions for health, defined as actions undertaken by non-health sectors to protect the health of the population, are essential in the context of inter-linkages between three dimensions of sustainable development: economic, social, and environmental. These multisectoral actions can address the social and economic factors that influence the health of a population at the local, national, and global levels. This editorial identifies the challenges, opportunities and capacity development for effective multisectoral actions for health in a complex policy environment. The root causes of the challenges lie in poor governance such as entrenched political and administrative corruption, widespread clientelism, lack of citizen voice, weak social capital, lack of trust and lack of respect for human rights. This is further complicated by the lack of government effectiveness caused by poor capacity for strong public financial management and low levels of transparency and accountability which leads to corruption. The absence of or rapid changes in government policies, and low salary in relation to living standards result in migration out of qualified staff. Tobacco, alcohol and sugary drink industries are major risk factors for non-communicable diseases (NCDs) and had interfered with health policy through regulatory capture and potential law suits against the government. Opportunities still exist. Some World Health Assembly (WHA) and United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) resolutions are both considered as external driving forces for intersectoral actions for health. In addition, Thailand National Health Assembly under the National Health Act is another tool providing opportunity to form trust among stakeholders from different sectors. Capacity development at individual, institutional and system level to generate evidence and ensure it is used by multisectoral agencies is as critical as strengthening the health literacy of people and the overall good governance of a country.