Incidental findings in medical imaging.

The success of medical imaging as a diagnostic tool has resulted in a continuing increase in its use. Technological advances mean that images are now acquired at higher resolution and in greater volumes than ever before. This has led to an increase in the detection of findings which do not appear to be related to the primary purpose of the examination and have been termed "incidental". Many of these will be harmless but some will carry significant implications for the patient's health. Determining which of these findings are significant and which may be safely disregarded is an increasing problem in radiology practice. Radiologists should familiarise themselves with the more common incidental findings in order to make the best possible estimation of their importance in each case and to allow them to make appropriate recommendations for further investigation where this is indicated. The decision to advise further investigation carries implications for the patient and the service as a whole and requires careful consideration.

Diagnostics: a major priority for the NHS.

Diagnostic capacity in the NHS in England was much lower than that in many other developed countries before the COVID-19 pandemic. The relative lack of diagnostic equipment and workforce is now hampering recovery from the pandemic. In response to this, a major programme of work is now underway to improve access to a wide range of diagnostic tests. Establishment of community diagnostic centres is a key component of this programme.

Error in radiology-where are we now?

Error is inherent in radiological practice. Our awareness of the extent of this and the reasons behind it has increased in recent times. Our next step must be the development of a shared understanding with our patients of the limitations as well as the huge benefits of medical imaging.

Impact of detecting potentially serious incidental findings during multi-modal imaging.

Background: There are limited data on the impact of feedback of incidental findings (IFs) from research imaging.  We evaluated the impact of UK Biobank's protocol for handling potentially serious IFs in a multi-modal imaging study of 100,000 participants (radiographer 'flagging' with radiologist confirmation of potentially serious IFs) compared with systematic radiologist review of all images. Methods: Brain, cardiac and body magnetic resonance, and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scans from the first 1000 imaged UK Biobank participants were independently assessed for potentially serious IFs using both protocols. We surveyed participants with potentially serious IFs and their GPs up to six months after imaging to determine subsequent clinical assessments, final diagnoses, emotional, financial and work or activity impacts. Results: Compared to systematic radiologist review, radiographer flagging resulted in substantially fewer participants with potentially serious IFs (179/1000 [17.9%] versus 18/1000 [1.8%]) and a higher proportion with serious final diagnoses (21/179 [11.7%] versus 5/18 [27.8%]). Radiographer flagging missed 16/21 serious final diagnoses (i.e., false negatives), while systematic radiologist review generated large numbers of non-serious final diagnoses (158/179) (i.e., false positives). Almost all (90%) participants had further clinical assessment (including invasive procedures in similar numbers with serious and non-serious final diagnoses [11 and 12 respectively]), with additional impact on emotional wellbeing (16.9%), finances (8.9%), and work or activities (5.6%). Conclusions: Compared with systematic radiologist review, radiographer flagging missed some serious diagnoses, but avoided adverse impacts for many participants with non-serious diagnoses. While systematic radiologist review may benefit some participants, UK Biobank's responsibility to avoid both unnecessary harm to larger numbers of participants and burdening of publicly-funded health services suggests that radiographer flagging is a justifiable approach in the UK Biobank imaging study. The potential scale of non-serious final diagnoses raises questions relating to handling IFs in other settings, such as commercial and public health screening.

Improved clinical outcomes and efficacy with a nurse-led dysphagia hotline service.

BACKGROUND: A nurse practitioner-led dysphagia service was introduced to improve appropriateness of investigations. OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical outcomes and efficacy of this service. DESIGN AND PATIENTS: A 7-year prospective audit of the first 2000 patients referred for investigation of dysphagia. SETTING: Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust. INTERVENTION: An innovative nurse practitioner-led telephone dysphagia hotline (DHL) assessment service for all patients and consultant review following investigation prior to discharge. OUTCOMES: Clinical outcomes, service efficiency and cost effectiveness. RESULTS: 2000 patients (median age 70 years, 48% male) were referred in less than 7 years, 1775 being managed fully through the DHL. 67% patients had gastroscopy only, 13% barium swallow only and 8.8% both and 11.2% had no investigation. Reflux was the commonest cause (41.3%), 9% had peptic stricture, 10% malignancy 1.9% pharyngeal pouches and 0.8% achalasia. The did not attend rate was reduced from 3.9% to 1.1% and 151 patients either refused or did not require investigation saving a potential £53 040. Although some patients with pharyngeal pouches had gastroscopy as initial investigation, no complications resulted. CONCLUSIONS: The nurse practitioner-led DHL service has improved efficiency and resulted in a safe prompt service to patients.