OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the adequacy of patient data and clinical information transmitted to the radiological departments by the referring clinicians in view of the justification demands concerning the radiological examinations, as those are described in the Radiation Protection Regulations of the European Union Nations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Request forms for 1708 patients referred to radiology department and 410 referred to the CT department were evaluated concerning the proper completion of the form fields. Furthermore, for CT examinations a more detailed evaluation was carried out, to assess the rationalistic use of CT within the diagnostic algorithm. RESULTS: Not properly completed request forms to both departments were observed, however, the omissions were more prominent for the referrals to the radiology department, where the age and the probable clinical diagnosis was not given in 81.5 and 46% of the forms, respectively. Furthermore, the emergency indication was less cautiously used compared to the CT requests. For the CT department 33.3% of requests were justified and the final diagnosis was included in the referring doctor's probable clinical diagnosis. U/S was the examination of choice in 51% of the cases where an examination should have been performed before CT and in 70.6% of the cases where an alternative examination was proposed. CONCLUSIONS: The inadequate transmission of clinical information and the large number of not fully justified CT requests observed in this study are typical examples of the various problems that radiologists have to face in order to apply the justification directives.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the adequacy of patient data and clinical information transmitted to the radiological departments by the referring clinicians in view of the justification demands concerning the radiological examinations, as those are described in the Radiation Protection Regulations of the European Union Nations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Request forms for 1708 patients referred to radiology department and 410 referred to the CT department were evaluated concerning the proper completion of the form fields. Furthermore, for CT examinations a more detailed evaluation was carried out, to assess the rationalistic use of CT within the diagnostic algorithm. RESULTS: Not properly completed request forms to both departments were observed, however, the omissions were more prominent for the referrals to the radiology department, where the age and the probable clinical diagnosis was not given in 81.5 and 46% of the forms, respectively. Furthermore, the emergency indication was less cautiously used compared to the CT requests. For the CT department 33.3% of requests were justified and the final diagnosis was included in the referring doctor's probable clinical diagnosis. U/S was the examination of choice in 51% of the cases where an examination should have been performed before CT and in 70.6% of the cases where an alternative examination was proposed. CONCLUSIONS: The inadequate transmission of clinical information and the large number of not fully justified CT requests observed in this study are typical examples of the various problems that radiologists have to face in order to apply the justification directives.
Authors: J Malone; R Guleria; C Craven; P Horton; H Järvinen; J Mayo; G O'reilly; E Picano; D Remedios; J Le Heron; M Rehani; O Holmberg; R Czarwinski Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2011-02-22 Impact factor: 3.039