Ignatius Liew1, Fraser Dean1, Gillian Anderson2, Odhrán Murray3. 1. Department of Spine, Trauma and Orthopaedics, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, 1345 Govan Road, Govan, Glasgow, G51 4TF, UK. 2. Department of Management Science, University of Strathclyde Business School, Glasgow, UK. 3. Department of Spine, Trauma and Orthopaedics, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, 1345 Govan Road, Govan, Glasgow, G51 4TF, UK. odhran.murray@ggc.scot.nhs.uk.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To define if MRI scans can accurately be requested based on information provided in the primary care referral and, therefore, streamline the patient journey. The demand for outpatient spinal appointments significantly exceeds our services' ability to provide efficient, high-quality patient care. Currently, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the spine is requested following first consultation. METHODS: During routine vetting of primary care referral letters, three consultant spinal surgeons recorded how likely they thought each patient would be to have an MRI scan. Following the first consultation with the spinal service, the notes of each patient were reviewed to see if an MRI was requested. We measured the positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), sensitivity and specificity of ordering MRI scans based on primary care referral letters. RESULTS: 149 patients were included [101 females, 48 males, mean age 49 (16-87)]. There were 125 routine, 21 urgent, and 3 'urgent-suspected cancer' referrals. The PPV of ordering MRIs before first consultation was 84%, NPV was 56% with the sensitivity and specificity being 82 and 59%, respectively. Ordering MRIs during initial vetting could shorten the patient journey with potential socioeconomic benefits. CONCLUSIONS: MRI scans can be effectively ordered based on the information provided by the primary care referral letter. Requesting MRI scans early in the patient journey can save considerable time, improve care, and deliver cost savings. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
OBJECTIVE: To define if MRI scans can accurately be requested based on information provided in the primary care referral and, therefore, streamline the patient journey. The demand for outpatient spinal appointments significantly exceeds our services' ability to provide efficient, high-quality patient care. Currently, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the spine is requested following first consultation. METHODS: During routine vetting of primary care referral letters, three consultant spinal surgeons recorded how likely they thought each patient would be to have an MRI scan. Following the first consultation with the spinal service, the notes of each patient were reviewed to see if an MRI was requested. We measured the positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), sensitivity and specificity of ordering MRI scans based on primary care referral letters. RESULTS: 149 patients were included [101 females, 48 males, mean age 49 (16-87)]. There were 125 routine, 21 urgent, and 3 'urgent-suspected cancer' referrals. The PPV of ordering MRIs before first consultation was 84%, NPV was 56% with the sensitivity and specificity being 82 and 59%, respectively. Ordering MRIs during initial vetting could shorten the patient journey with potential socioeconomic benefits. CONCLUSIONS: MRI scans can be effectively ordered based on the information provided by the primary care referral letter. Requesting MRI scans early in the patient journey can save considerable time, improve care, and deliver cost savings. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
Entities:
Keywords:
General practitioners; Magnetic resonance imaging; Outpatient department; Patient care; Quality improvement; Quality of patient care; Sensitivity; Specificity; Streamline patient journey
Authors: Daryl R Fourney; Joseph R Dettori; Hamilton Hall; Roger Härtl; Matthew J McGirt; Michael D Daubs Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2011-10-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Evelien I T de Schepper; Bart W Koes; Edwin H G Oei; Sita M A Bierma-Zeinstra; Pim A J Luijsterburg Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2016-02-08 Impact factor: 3.134