INTRODUCTION: In 2015 the British Medical Ultrasound Society released a referral justification document for rejection of inappropriate ultrasound referrals to help manage increasing demand and ensure correct utilisation of diagnostic imaging tests. In our trust, referrals that were not aligned with the guidance were cancelled and returned to general practitioners, providing reasons for cancellation and advising other diagnostic tests if appropriate.Methodology: In total, 1000 cases cancelled between April and August 2019 were retrospectively audited by a team of clinical specialist sonographers. Interoperator agreement against BMUS justification guidelines and safety of this cancellation process were established. Duplicate imaging referrals, referrals made that should have been placed on management pathways or referrals cancelled by the patient directly were excluded in the safety assessment. RESULTS: There was strong agreement amongst sonographers regarding cancellations. After exclusions, 389 cases were included for review. The majority (90.5%) required no onward imaging and were therefore deemed cancelled appropriately. There were 37 patients found with pathology on subsequent imaging, two of which were found to have cancer and the remainder with benign pathology. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, we found the cancellation process to be safe and the justification document easy to utilise in practice. This process has ensured a minimal waiting time for ultrasound imaging is maintained and that demand can be managed to meet the available capacity.
INTRODUCTION: In 2015 the British Medical Ultrasound Society released a referral justification document for rejection of inappropriate ultrasound referrals to help manage increasing demand and ensure correct utilisation of diagnostic imaging tests. In our trust, referrals that were not aligned with the guidance were cancelled and returned to general practitioners, providing reasons for cancellation and advising other diagnostic tests if appropriate.Methodology: In total, 1000 cases cancelled between April and August 2019 were retrospectively audited by a team of clinical specialist sonographers. Interoperator agreement against BMUS justification guidelines and safety of this cancellation process were established. Duplicate imaging referrals, referrals made that should have been placed on management pathways or referrals cancelled by the patient directly were excluded in the safety assessment. RESULTS: There was strong agreement amongst sonographers regarding cancellations. After exclusions, 389 cases were included for review. The majority (90.5%) required no onward imaging and were therefore deemed cancelled appropriately. There were 37 patients found with pathology on subsequent imaging, two of which were found to have cancer and the remainder with benign pathology. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, we found the cancellation process to be safe and the justification document easy to utilise in practice. This process has ensured a minimal waiting time for ultrasound imaging is maintained and that demand can be managed to meet the available capacity.
Authors: Andre B Bautista; Anthony Burgos; Barbara J Nickel; John J Yoon; Amish A Tilara; Judith K Amorosa Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2009-06 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: David M Studdert; Michelle M Mello; William M Sage; Catherine M DesRoches; Jordon Peugh; Kinga Zapert; Troyen A Brennan Journal: JAMA Date: 2005-06-01 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Ch Triantopoulou; I Tsalafoutas; P Maniatis; D Papavdis; G Raios; I Siafas; S Velonakis; E Koulentianos Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 3.528