Abstract
Purpose
This study assessed radiology requests and the influence of previous radiological procedures on their specificity and appropriateness, evaluated diagnostic outcomes and recorded the economic impact of inappropriate examinations.
Materials and methods
We prospectively analysed 4,018 outpatient requests, the appropriateness of which was assessed using an evaluation form. Economic analysis was based on costs listed in the Italian National Health Services (NHS) national tariff as established by the Ministerial Decree of 22 July 1996. Statistical analysis was carried out using Pearson’s test and univariate and multivariate logistic regression models.
Results
Of 4,018 outpatient requests, 57% were not included in a follow-up protocol and 56% were found to be appropriate. The diagnostic question was confirmed in 66% of cases considered appropriate (p<0.001). The existence of previous investigations had a significant impact on appropriateness and diagnostic outcome (p<0.001). The total cost of the requests was 257,317 euros, with inappropriate requests accounting for 94,012 euro (36.5%).
Conclusions
We found a 56% rate of appropriate requests and demonstrated that appropriate prescriptions provided with a specific clinical question led to significantly higher confirmation rates of the diagnostic hypothesis. In addition, inappropriate requests had a major negative economic impact.
Riassunto
Obiettivo
Scopo del nostro lavoro è stato verificare l’appropriatezza delle richieste di esami di diagnostica per immagini non inserite in programmi di follow-up e quanto i precedenti radiologici influiscano sulla specificità delle richieste e sull’appropriatezza, valutare il loro riscontro diagnostico, registrare l’impatto economico degli esami inappropriati.
Materiali e metodi
Abbiamo analizzato 4018 richieste ambulatoriali, l’appropriatezza è stata verificata mediante una scheda di valutazione dedicata. Nell’analisi economica sono stati valutate le tariffe previste dal nomenclatore per il Sistema Sanitario Nazionale (SSN) determinato dal Decreto Ministeriale (DM) del 22/07/1996. L’analisi statistica ha utilizzato il test di Pearson e modelli di regressione logistica univariata e multivariata.
Risultati
Le richieste non in follow-up hanno rappresentato il 57% delle prescrizioni esaminate e sono risultate appropriate nel 55,5% dei casi. La conferma del quesito diagnostico si è verificata nel 66% dei casi appropriati (p<0,001). La presenza di precedenti indagini ha influenzato l’appropriatezza delle richieste (p<0,001) e la conferma della diagnosi (p<0,001). Il fatturato totale degli esami è stato di 257317 euro, gli esami non appropriati hanno pesato per 94012 euro (36,5%).
Conclusioni
Abbiamo documentato una appropriatezza prescrittiva del 56% e come una richiesta appropriata associata alla presenza di un quesito specifico comporti una percentuale significativamente elevata di conferme dell’ipotesi diagnostica, calcolando inoltre il rilevante impatto sul piano finanziario delle richieste inappropriate.
Similar content being viewed by others
References/Bibliografia
Berlin L (2001) American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria and Standards: separate programs. AJR Am J Roentgenol 176:811–812
http://www.agenas.it/agenas_pdf/diag_per_immag.pdf. Last access July 2011
Tierney WM, Miller ME, McDonald CJ (1990) The effect on test ordering of informing physicians of the charges for outpatient diagnostic tests. N Engl J Med 322:1499–1504
Kerry S, Oakeshott P, Dundas D, Williams J (2000) Influence of postal distribution of the Royal College of Radiologists’ guidelines, together with feedback on radiological referral rates, on X-ray referrals from general practice: a randomized controlled trial. Fam Pract 17:46–52
Rao JK, Kroenke K, Mihaliak KA et al (2002) Can guidelines impact the ordering of magnetic resonance imaging studies by primary care providers for low back pain? Am J Manag Care 8:27–35
Bree RL, Kazerooni EA, Katz SJ (1996) Effect of mandatory radiology consultation on inpatient imaging use. A randomized controlled trial. JAMA 276:1595–1598
Levy G, Blachar A, Goldstein L et al (2006) Nonradiologist utilization of American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria in a preauthorization center for MRI requests: applicability and effects. AJR Am J Roentgenol 187:855–858
Vartanians VM, Sistrom CL, Weilburg JB et al (2010) Increasing the appropriateness of outpatient imaging: effects of a barrier to ordering low-yield examinations. Radiology 255:842–849
http://www.cms.gov/DemoProjectsEvalRpts/MD/itemdetail.asp?itemID=CMS1222075
Ministero della Sanità (1996) http://www.normativasanitaria.it/jsp/dettaglio.jsp?id=6403. Last access July 2011
Kahn CE Jr, Michalski TA, Erickson SJ et al (1997) Appropriateness of imaging procedure requests: do radiologists agree? AJR Am J Roentgenol 169:11–14
Bindels R, Hasman A, van Wersch JW et al (2003) The reliability of assessing the appropriateness of requested diagnostic tests. Med Decis Making 23:31–37
Tigges S, Sutherland D, Manaster BJ (2000) Do radiologists use the American College of Radiology Musculoskeletal Appropriateness Criteria? AJR Am J Roentgenol 175:545–547
Wolfe RM, Sharp LK, Wang RM (2004) Family physicians’ opinions and attitudes to three clinical practice guidelines. J Am Board Fam Pract 17:150–157
Lomas J, Anderson GM, Domnick-Pierre K et al (1989) Do practice guidelines guide practice? The effect of a consensus statement on the practice of physicians. N Engl J Med 321:1306–1311
van Wijk MA, Bohnen AM, van der Lei J (1999) Analysis of the practice guidelines of the Dutch College of General Practitioners with respect to the use of blood tests. J Am Med Inform Assoc 6:322–331
Martin TA, Quiroz FA, Rand SD, Kahn CE Jr (1999) Applicability of American College of Radiology appropriateness criteria in a general internal medicine clinic. AJR Am J Roentgenol 173:9–11
Van Breuseghem I, Geusens E (2006) Assessment of the appropriateness of requested radiological examinations for outpatients and the potential financial consequences of guideline application. JBR-BTR 89:8–11
Lehnert BE, Bree RL (2010) Analysis of appropriateness of outpatient CT and MRI referred from primary care clinics at an academic medical center: how critical is the need for improved decision support? J Am Coll Radiol 7:192–197
De Filippo M, Corsi A, Evaristi L et al (2011) Critical issues in radiology requests and reports. Radiol Med 116:152–162
Forman HP, Beauchamp NJ Jr, Kazerooni EA et al (2010) Masters of radiology panel discussion: who is accountable for the appropriateness of studies—the radiologist, the referring physician, or both? AJR Am J Roentgenol 195:968–973
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cristofaro, M., Busi Rizzi, E., Schininà, V. et al. Appropriateness: analysis of outpatient radiology requests. Radiol med 117, 322–332 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-011-0725-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-011-0725-2