BACKGROUND: Primary care requests for radiographs of the lumbar spine have come under increasing scrutiny. Guidelines aiming to reduce unnecessary radiographs by limiting referrals to patients at high risk of serious disease have been widely distributed. Trial evidence suggests that guidelines can reduce radiography referrals. It is not clear whether this reduction has been achieved in routine practice. AIM: This study, using routine data, was conducted to measure trends in pnmary care referrals for lumbar spine radiography at two hospitals between 1994 and 1999. DESIGN OF STUDY: Analysis of primary care requests for lumbar spine radiography from computerised records. SETTING: Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge (1 July 1994 to 30 June 1999), and Ipswich General Hospital (1 July 1995 to 30 June 1999), United Kingdom. METHOD: All primary care requests for lumbar radiography were identified electronically from computerised information systems. A random sample of 2100 radiography reports were classified according to clinical importance. These classifications were used to examine whether the proportion of radiographs demonstrating potentially more serious findings had increased between 1994 and 1999. RESULTS: There was no evidence that primary care referrals for radiography of the lumbar spine had decreased between 1994 and 1999 at either hospital. General practitioners did not progressively refer more high-risk patients for lumbar radiography. Only a small proportion of patients had important radiographic findings that might warrant specialist referral or specific therapy. CONCLUSION: The implementation of diagnostic guidelines offers much to the NHS. However in these two hospitals, the reduction in radiograph utilisation evident in trials was not achieved. Guideline development is a resource intensive process; distribution must be supported by more effective implementation strategies.
BACKGROUND: Primary care requests for radiographs of the lumbar spine have come under increasing scrutiny. Guidelines aiming to reduce unnecessary radiographs by limiting referrals to patients at high risk of serious disease have been widely distributed. Trial evidence suggests that guidelines can reduce radiography referrals. It is not clear whether this reduction has been achieved in routine practice. AIM: This study, using routine data, was conducted to measure trends in pnmary care referrals for lumbar spine radiography at two hospitals between 1994 and 1999. DESIGN OF STUDY: Analysis of primary care requests for lumbar spine radiography from computerised records. SETTING: Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge (1 July 1994 to 30 June 1999), and Ipswich General Hospital (1 July 1995 to 30 June 1999), United Kingdom. METHOD: All primary care requests for lumbar radiography were identified electronically from computerised information systems. A random sample of 2100 radiography reports were classified according to clinical importance. These classifications were used to examine whether the proportion of radiographs demonstrating potentially more serious findings had increased between 1994 and 1999. RESULTS: There was no evidence that primary care referrals for radiography of the lumbar spine had decreased between 1994 and 1999 at either hospital. General practitioners did not progressively refer more high-risk patients for lumbar radiography. Only a small proportion of patients had important radiographic findings that might warrant specialist referral or specific therapy. CONCLUSION: The implementation of diagnostic guidelines offers much to the NHS. However in these two hospitals, the reduction in radiograph utilisation evident in trials was not achieved. Guideline development is a resource intensive process; distribution must be supported by more effective implementation strategies.
Authors: Pål André Amundsen; David W Evans; Dévan Rajendran; Philip Bright; Tom Bjørkli; Sandra Eldridge; Rachelle Buchbinder; Martin Underwood; Robert Froud Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2018-04-12 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Esther H A van den Bogaart; Mariëlle E A L Kroese; Marieke D Spreeuwenberg; Ramon P G Ottenheijm; Patrick Deckers; Dirk Ruwaard Journal: BMC Fam Pract Date: 2019-11-09 Impact factor: 2.497
Authors: Amanda Hall; Helen Richmond; Andrea Pike; Rebecca Lawrence; Holly Etchegary; Michelle Swab; Jacqueline Y Thompson; Charlotte Albury; Jill Hayden; Andrea M Patey; James Matthews Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2021-07-02 Impact factor: 7.327