PURPOSE: What is the percentage of non-indicated examinations in the routine work of a radiologic university clinic? METHODS: From April 1st, 1994, to June 30th, 1994, all examinations carried out in the Radiology Department of the University Hospital of Cologne, Germany, were evaluated prospectively by the radiological medical staff using a questionnaire. The question was whether the examinations were medically indicated or not. Requests for examinations which were not carried out due to lacking indications were excluded from evaluation. The percentage of error was assessed by analysis of random samples assigned to the referring clinicians. RESULTS: 1400 (5.4%) of a total of 25718 examinations were considered by the radiological medical staff as "not indicated". A subsample analysis performed for validation gave an upper margin of a 95% confidence interval of about 13% for this rating. The percentage of non-indicated examinations was higher in conventional x-ray examinations and ultrasonography than in x-ray angiography, computed tomography and magnetic resonance tomography. Examinations during night time and weekend showed a higher percentage of lacking medical indications than examinations during daytime. CONCLUSIONS: Considering a university clinic concerned with educational work, the percentage of radiological examinations carried out without medical indication was tolerable. However, indications must be further improved by intensifying the communication with the referring clinicians and by elaborating a higher standard of radiological and clinical postgraduate training.
PURPOSE: What is the percentage of non-indicated examinations in the routine work of a radiologic university clinic? METHODS: From April 1st, 1994, to June 30th, 1994, all examinations carried out in the Radiology Department of the University Hospital of Cologne, Germany, were evaluated prospectively by the radiological medical staff using a questionnaire. The question was whether the examinations were medically indicated or not. Requests for examinations which were not carried out due to lacking indications were excluded from evaluation. The percentage of error was assessed by analysis of random samples assigned to the referring clinicians. RESULTS: 1400 (5.4%) of a total of 25718 examinations were considered by the radiological medical staff as "not indicated". A subsample analysis performed for validation gave an upper margin of a 95% confidence interval of about 13% for this rating. The percentage of non-indicated examinations was higher in conventional x-ray examinations and ultrasonography than in x-ray angiography, computed tomography and magnetic resonance tomography. Examinations during night time and weekend showed a higher percentage of lacking medical indications than examinations during daytime. CONCLUSIONS: Considering a university clinic concerned with educational work, the percentage of radiological examinations carried out without medical indication was tolerable. However, indications must be further improved by intensifying the communication with the referring clinicians and by elaborating a higher standard of radiological and clinical postgraduate training.