Computed tomography referral guidelines adherence in Europe: insights from a seven-country audit.

BACKGROUND: Ensuring appropriate computed tomography (CT) utilization optimizes patient care while minimizing radiation exposure. Decision support tools show promise for standardizing appropriateness. OBJECTIVES: In the current study, we aimed to assess CT appropriateness rates using the European Society of Radiology (ESR) iGuide criteria across seven European countries. Additional objectives were to identify factors associated with appropriateness variability and examine recommended alternative exams. METHODS: As part of the European Commission-funded EU-JUST-CT project, 6734 anonymized CT referrals were audited across 125 centers in Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Hungary, and Slovenia. In each country, two blinded radiologists independently scored each exam's appropriateness using the ESR iGuide and noted any recommended alternatives based on presented indications. Arbitration was used in case auditors disagreed. Associations between appropriateness rate and institution type, patient's age and sex, inpatient/outpatient patient status, anatomical area, and referring physician's specialty were statistically examined within each country. RESULTS: The average appropriateness rate was 75%, ranging from 58% in Greece to 86% in Denmark. Higher rates were associated with public hospitals, inpatient settings, and referrals from specialists. Variability in appropriateness existed by country and anatomical area, patient age, and gender. Common alternative exam recommendations included magnetic resonance imaging, X-ray, and ultrasound. CONCLUSION: This multi-country evaluation found that even when using a standardized imaging guideline, significant variations in CT appropriateness persist, ranging from 58% to 86% across the participating countries. The study provided valuable insights into real-world utilization patterns and identified opportunities to optimize practices and reduce clinical and demographic disparities in CT use. KEY POINTS: Question Largest multinational study (7 EU countries, 6734 CT referrals) assessed real-world CT appropriateness using ESR iGuide, enabling cross-system comparisons. Findings Significant variability in appropriateness rates across institution type, patient status, age, gender, exam area, and physician specialty, highlighted the opportunities to optimize practices based on local factors. Clinical relevance International collaboration on imaging guidelines and decision support can maximize CT benefits while optimizing radiation exposure; ongoing research is crucial for refining evidence-based guidelines globally.

Canadian Association of Radiologists Obstetrics and Gynecology Diagnostic Imaging Referral Guideline.

The Canadian Association of Radiologists (CAR) Obstetrics and Gynecology Expert Panel consists of radiologists specializing in obstetrics and gynecology, obstetrics and gynecology physicians, a patient advisor, and an epidemiologist/guideline methodologist. After developing a list of 12 clinical/diagnostic scenarios, a systematic rapid scoping review was undertaken to identify systematically produced referral guidelines that provide recommendations for one or more of these clinical/diagnostic scenarios. Recommendations from 46 guidelines and contextualization criteria in the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) for guidelines framework were used to develop 68 recommendation statements across the 12 scenarios related to the evaluation of obstetrics and gynecology clinical and diagnostic scenarios. This guideline presents the methods of development and the imaging recommendations for a variety of obstetrical and gynecological conditions including pregnancy assessment, recurrent first trimester pregnancy loss, post-partum indications, disorders of menstruation, localization of intra-uterine contraceptive device, infertility assessment, assessment of adnexal mass, pelvic pain of presumed gynecological origin, and pelvic floor evaluation.

Appropriateness of lumbar spine radiography and factors influencing imaging ordering patterns: paving the path toward value-driven health care.

The demand for diagnostic imaging continues to rise. Against the backdrop of rising health care costs and finite resources, this has prompted a paradigm shift toward value-driven patient care. Inappropriate imaging is a barrier toward achieving this goal, which runs counter to prevailing evidence-based guidelines and contributes to rising healthcare costs. Our objective was to evaluate the appropriateness of lumbar spine X-rays in a tertiary referral Emergency Department (ED) and assess whether physicians' specialization and years of experience influence appropriateness. A total of 1030 lumbar spine radiographs performed in the ED of an academic medical center over a consecutive 3-month period were reviewed retrospectively. Referral indications were reviewed for adherence to 2021 American College of Radiology appropriateness guidelines for lower back pain, and referral patterns were evaluated among physician groups based on specialists' training and years in practice. 63.8% of lumbar spine radiographs were appropriate, with trauma being the most common indication. 36.2% of orders were inappropriate, with lower back pain of <6 weeks duration being the most common indication. Significant differences in inappropriate orders were found (P < .001) across physician groups: qualified Emergency Medicine specialists (20.9% inappropriate orders), specialists in training (27.8%), and non-specialists with ≥3 (60.0%) and <3 (36.9%) years in practice, respectively. Approximately one-third of lumbar spine radiographs performed in the ED were inappropriately ordered by American College of Radiology guidelines; specialists training and years in practice affected referral patterns. Integrating evidence-based appropriateness guidelines into the physician order workflow and targeting older non-specialists may promote more judicious imaging and reduce health care costs.

Referral of Burn Patients in the Absence of Guidelines: A Rwandan Study.

INTRODUCTION: The management of severe burns and pediatric burns requires an organized system of care delivery, which includes referral guidelines. In Rwanda, the burn unit at the University Teaching Hospital of Kigali (CHUK) is the only dedicated burn unit in the country and admits patients of all ages referred from the other provinces. However, since there are no official referral guidelines, it is unknown whether patients with burns are appropriately referred. This study aims to analyze referral patterns among burn patients admitted at the CHUK burn unit and their adherence to the referral criteria listed by the American Burn Association (ABA), comparing patients transferred to the burn unit from facilities within Kigali and those referred from facilities outside Kigali. METHODS: This retrospective study included all patients with acute burns admitted to the CHUK burn unit with data available on the province of origin from 2005 to 2019. Patients with burns younger than 16 y were defined as pediatric burns, as per the CHUK routines. Characteristics of all burns referred from a facility within Kigali (Pat-K) and facilities outside Kigali (Pat-O) were compared using Fisher's exact test for categorical variables or Wilcoxon rank-sum test for continuous variables. The adherence to ABA referral criteria was assessed for variables with available data, which were total burnt surface area %, burn thickness, cause of burn, and age. RESULTS: The study population consisted of 1093 patients, of which 1064 had data regarding if they were referred from other facilities to CHUK. Overall, the median age was 3 y (2-16 y), with Pat-O being older than Pat-K (P < 0.001). Scalds were the dominant cause of injury in both groups; flame was more common among Pat-O than among Pat-K (in 25.5% versus 10.6%, P < 0.01). Burns of larger size and depth were more common among Pat-O, as compared to the Pat-K group [median total burnt surface area % = 19% versus 15.5%, respectively (P < 0.001); presence of full-thickness burns = 55.6% versus 29.7 %, respectively (P < 0.001)]. Hospitalization was longer and in-hospital mortality higher in Pat-O than in Pat-K [LOS = 42 d (interquartile range 11-164) versus 28 d (interquartile range 9-132), P < 0.05; in-hospital mortality = 18.9% versus 10.1%, P < 0.001]. Among Pat-O, 85% had characteristics that mirrored one or more of the analyzed ABA criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Although there are no clear guidelines, referral patterns indicate that patients are being appropriately referred for specialized burn care in Rwanda. Compared to patients from Kigali, rural patients had larger and more severe injuries, needed more surgical interventions, and had worse outcomes. Most of referred patients matched criteria listed among international referral guidelines. However, the statement of national referral criteria is essential to improve timely access to adequate care.

Developing consensus-based referral criteria for low vision services in Australia.

PURPOSE: To develop expert consensus on referral criteria for low vision services in Australia. METHODS: In a modified online Delphi process, a panel of 38 Australian experts in low vision (including ophthalmologists, optometrists, orthoptists, occupational therapists, orientation and mobility professionals, researchers and managers) participated in three rounds of consensus building over a period of 5 months commencing in 2019. Initially, 90 statements were developed, addressing what should be included in best-practice low vision referral criteria, currently used criteria, timing of referral and responsibility for referral. By the third round, these had been reduced and refined to a total of four statements. RESULTS: In three Delphi rounds, the expert panel produced three key recommendations for low vision referral: (1) that low vision referral should be based mainly on the impact of uncorrectable vision impairment on function and well-being; (2) clinical measures of visual acuity and visual field might be a secondary consideration and (3) it is important to fully inform a person about low vision services at an early stage of vision loss and to involve them in decision making about referral. There was consensus on the need for clear referral pathways and that both ophthalmologists and optometrists have primary responsibility to refer for low vision services. CONCLUSIONS: Although recommendations and guidelines should not replace sound individual clinical judgement, promotion and adoption of these consensus recommendations could assist health care professionals in providing appropriate and timely referral for low vision services to the benefit of people with vision impairment.

Referral guidelines for medical imaging in children: an ESR-EuroSafe Imaging survey on availability, awareness and use in clinical practice among European radiologists.

OBJECTIVES: Justification of medical exposures from medical imaging is fundamental to radiation protection. Referral guidelines are intended to help physicians decide when an imaging study is justified. For two decades, referral guidelines have been a legally binding requirement for European Union member states. Recently, the European Society of Radiology (ESR) developed iGuide tool, which provides evidence-based referral guidance for imaging inclusive of children. The aim of this survey was to assess the availability, use and familiarity of referral guidelines for medical imaging in children and knowledge about the availability of ESR iGuide among ESR member radiologists. METHODS: Over a 2-month period (15 September-15 November 2019), 33,257 ESR member radiologists were invited to respond to an anonymised web-based questionnaire, which consisted of 12 multiple-choice questions. RESULTS: In total, 2067/33,257 responses (6.3%) were received from 52 countries. A total of 1068 out of 2067 (51.7%) respondents were aware that imaging referral guidelines are a legal requirement. One thousand five (48.6%) of all respondents did not know whether dedicated guidelines for imaging in children were available, and only 653 (31.2%) were aware of the mainstays of the available guidelines. Similarly, just 746 (36.1%) of all respondents were aware of ESR iGuide availability and features. CONCLUSIONS: The information gathered confirms that effective and widespread adoption of imaging referral guidelines is lacking, especially in children. Further work is required to improve uptake and awareness. KEY POINTS: • Justification of medical exposures is fundamental to radiation protection and evidence-based referral guidelines are crucial for practical implementation of this principle. • About half of survey respondents are aware that the availability of imaging referral guidelines is a legal requirement, despite this being mandated since 1997. • The information gathered from this survey confirms that, especially in children, an effective and widespread adoption of imaging referral guidelines is lacking.

Quality and women's satisfaction with maternal referral practices in sub-Saharan African low and lower-middle income countries: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: sub-Saharan African Low and Lower-Middle Income Countries (sSA LLMICs) have the highest burden of maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality in the world. Timely and appropriate maternal referral to a suitable health facility is an indicator of effective health systems. In this systematic review we aimed to identify which referral practices are delivered according to accepted standards for pregnant women and newborns in sSA LLMICs by competent healthcare providers in line with the needs of pregnant women. METHODS: Six electronic databases were systematically searched for primary data studies (2009-2018) in English reporting on maternal referral practices and their effectiveness. We conducted a content analysis guided by a framework for assessing the quality of maternal referral. Quality referral was defined as: timely identification of signal functions, established guidelines or standards, adequate documentation, staff accompaniment and prompt care by competent healthcare providers in the receiving facility. RESULTS: Seventeen articles were included in the study. Most studies were quantitative (n = 11). Two studies reported that women were dissatisfied due to delays in referral processes that affected their health. Most articles (10) reported that women were not accompanied to higher levels of care, delays in referral processes, transport challenges and poor referral documentation. Some healthcare providers administered essential drugs such as misoprostol prior to referral. CONCLUSIONS: Efforts to improve maternal health in LLMICs should aim to enhance maternity care providers' ability to identify conditions that demand referral. Low cost transport is needed to mitigate barriers of referral. To ensure quality maternal referral, district level health managers should be trained and equipped with the skills needed to monitor and evaluate referral documentation, including quality and efficiency of maternal referrals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Systematic review registration: PROSPERO registration CRD42018114261 .

Families with BAP1-Tumor Predisposition Syndrome in The Netherlands: Path to Identification and a Proposal for Genetic Screening Guidelines.

Germline pathogenic variants in the BRCA1-associated protein-1 (BAP1) gene cause the BAP1-tumor predisposition syndrome (BAP1-TPDS, OMIM 614327). BAP1-TPDS is associated with an increased risk of developing uveal melanoma (UM), cutaneous melanoma (CM), malignant mesothelioma (MMe), renal cell carcinoma (RCC), meningioma, cholangiocarcinoma, multiple non-melanoma skin cancers, and BAP1-inactivated nevi. Because of this increased risk, it is important to identify patients with BAP1-TPDS. The associated tumors are treated by different medical disciplines, emphasizing the need for generally applicable guidelines for initiating genetic analysis. In this study, we describe the path to identification of BAP1-TPDS in 21 probands found in the Netherlands and the family history at the time of presentation. We report two cases of de novo BAP1 germline mutations (2/21, 9.5%). Findings of this study combined with previously published literature, led to a proposal of guidelines for genetic referral. We recommend genetic analysis in patients with ≥2 BAP1-TPDS-associated tumors in their medical history and/or family history. We also propose to test germline BAP1 in patients diagnosed with UM <40 years, CM <18 years, MMe <50 years, or RCC <46 years. Furthermore, other candidate susceptibility genes for tumor types associated with BAP1-TPDS are discussed, which can be included in gene panels when testing patients.

Methodology for ESR iGuide content.

The European Society of Radiology (ESR) considers the use of evidence-based referral guidelines in clinical practice essential to ensure the appropriate utilisation of medical imaging for patients. Since 2014, the ESR has been working with the American College of Radiology (ACR) to develop referral guidelines for Europe, based on the ACR Appropriateness Criteria (AC) and appropriate use criteria developed by the ACR Rapid Response Committee.This paper sets out the methodology used by the ESR's Referral Guidelines Subcommittee to adapt the ACR criteria for use in the European clinical decision support (CDS) platform ESR iGuide. The ESR adheres to the ACR's original methodology as far as applicable, and has established additional methodological guidance for its experts, establishing several key principles: Any changes to existing recommendations, and any additional guidelines, should be based on evidence as far as possible Expert opinion, judgement, European practice standards, should only function as a supplement when necessary Appropriateness recommendations should give no consideration to national or institutional circumstances, costs, or availability of equipment. The cooperation between the ACR and ESR on appropriate use criteria and imaging referral guidelines provides added value to both societies as European studies and guidelines from European subspecialty societies of radiology are fed into the process and the exchange of views among the experts makes the guideline development and review process more robust.The ESR's aim is to ensure referrers and patients benefit from the best possible guidance for appropriate imaging.

The effective and collective dose to patients undergoing abdominopelvic and trunk computed tomography examinations: A Belgian multicentre study.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to evaluate the radiation exposure to patients undergoing an abdominopelvic or a chest and abdominopelvic (trunk) CT examination and to assess compliance to imaging referral guidelines. METHODS: To this end, 357 standard abdominopelvic and trunk CT scans were collected from 8 Belgian institutions in 2011 and 2015. Effective dose (E) and collective dose were calculated using CT dose descriptors (CTDIvol and DLP), which were obtained from dose reports generated by the CT scanner. Subsequently, these CT requests were compared against the national referral guidelines to assess compliance. Population estimates for dose and compliance were obtained using multilevel linear regression and generalized estimating equation models. RESULTS: Between 2011 and 2015, a significant decrease of 28% in CTDIvol and DLP was found for abdominopelvic CT. The corresponding E decreased by 27%, and the collective dose by 23%. For trunk CT, a non-significant decrease of 6% was found in CTDIvol and a significant decrease of 14% in both DLP and E. However, the collective dose of trunk examinations increased by 39%. In 2011, 24% of the abdominopelvic examinations were not compliant with the guidelines, whereas this percentage dropped to 17% in 2015. Non-justified examinations accounted for 8% and 12% of all trunk CT scans in 2011 and 2015, respectively. CONCLUSION: Between 2011 and 2015, there was a decrease in dose for patients undergoing abdominopelvic or trunk CT in Belgium. However, a fraction of the estimated doses are linked to unnecessary CT examinations, which should be avoided.

Factors affecting periodontal disease referral and the adherence to guidelines among general dentists.

BACKGROUND: Current research highlights a need to investigate the factors affecting periodontal disease referral. Limited literature exists on periodontal disease referral in Australia and no comparison to the periodontal disease referral guidelines exists. OBJECTIVE: This study analyses the factors affecting periodontal disease referral and the adherence to guidelines in general dentists in Queensland, Australia. METHODS: Fifty-seven general dentists who are members of the Australian Dental Association (Queensland) undertook an online survey. RESULTS: The disease factor regarded as most important (90% of respondents) was unresolved inflammation upon re-evaluation. The non-disease factor regarded as most important (79% of respondents) was the operator's level of training. There is low awareness of the guidelines (36.7%) yet a reasonable adherence to them (78.3%). Of those aware of the guidelines, there was a statistically significant poorer adherence to the guidelines compared to those unaware (P = 0.036), while there is no significant difference in the adherence to guidelines between those who have and those who have not attended continuing professional development (CPD) courses (P = 0.66). CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to current guidelines is not significantly impacted by the level of awareness of the guidelines or CPD attendance. The results from this study suggest a need to refine the current guidelines to better inform decisions about periodontal disease referrals.

Collaboration, campaigns and champions for appropriate imaging: feedback from the Zagreb workshop.

Leading radiologists and representatives from national radiation protection regulatory authorities and health ministries from 19 countries of the European region worked together with five experts at the workshop on justification and appropriate use of imaging in Zagreb, Croatia, from 26 to 28 October 2017 jointly organised by the IAEA and the European Society of Radiology. The workshop served as a forum to exchange information on challenges and solutions for improving justification and the appropriate use of diagnostic imaging. Common barriers to improving the use of imaging referral guidelines were discussed and the need for increased collaboration identified. Examples of good practices were presented, including use of Clinical Decision Support (CDS) systems to facilitate rapid and good justification decisions. The workshop identified some of the needs of European countries for achieving more appropriate imaging proposing wider use of collaboration, campaigns and champions. MAIN MESSAGES: • Drivers for appropriate imaging in Europe are similar to those elsewhere globally. • Implementing imaging referral guidelines is the main barrier to more appropriate imaging. • Clinical Decision Support systems (CDS) facilitates good referral practice and justification decisions. • Collaboration, campaigns and champions may improve awareness, appropriateness and audit.

Radiation protection: Factors influencing compliance to referral guidelines in minor chest trauma.

OBJECTIVES: To test the hypothesis that referral guidelines are not sufficiently known by prescribers and that medico-legal concerns could influence the prescription of radiographs in minor chest trauma. METHODS: We submitted a questionnaire including a typical clinical history and questions on reasons for prescribing radiographs of the ribs in minor chest trauma to 112 prescriptors (33 residents, 18 surgeons, 7 internists, 24 general practitioners and 30 ER physicians). All accepted to participate. Comparisons were performed by Fisher's exact test followed by a post-hoc analysis and by a McNemar test. RESULTS: Fifty-eight percent of prescriptors proposed rib radiographs, most (89%) being unaware of the guidelines. Only 11% of them changed their intention to order radiographs after information on referral guidelines and radiation dose (P=0.057). The mean dose delivered by rib radiographs was 38 times higher than that of a chest X-ray. Legal and medico-legal concerns (requirements from insurance policies and avoidance of lawsuits) were the main reasons for requesting radiographs. CONCLUSION: Unsharpness of guidelines in addition to social and medico-legal issues, rather than medical reasons or the lack of knowledge of the guidelines, strongly influence the prescription of radiographs of the ribs in minor chest trauma. KEY POINTS: • Most prescriptors order radiographs of the ribs in minor chest trauma. • Only few prescriptors are aware of referral guidelines. • Information on guidelines does not change their need for radiographs. • Motivations for ordering radiographs are rather legal than medical, but poor compliance to guidelines could also be explained by their unsharpness. • Radiation dose of rib radiographs was 38 times that of a PA chest radiograph.

Recipient selection process and listing for lung transplantation.

Lung transplantation remains the ultimate treatment option for selected patients with end-stage (cardio) pulmonary disease. Given the current organ shortage, it is without any doubt that careful selection of potential transplant candidates is essential as this may greatly influence survival after the procedure. In this paper, we will review the current guidelines for referral and listing of lung transplant candidates in general, and in more depth for the specific underlying diseases. Needless to state that these are not absolute guidelines, and that decisions depend upon center's activity, waiting list, etc. Therefore, every patient should be discussed with the transplant center before any definite decision is made to accept or decline a patient for lung transplantation.

Summary of the proceedings of the international forum 2016: "Imaging referral guidelines and clinical decision support - how can radiologists implement imaging referral guidelines in clinical routine?"

The International Forum is held once a year by the ESR and its international radiological partner societies with the aim to address and discuss selected subjects of global relevance in radiology. In 2016, the issue of implementing imaging referral guidelines in clinical routine was analysed. The legal environment in the USA requires that after January 1, 2017, physicians must consult government-approved, evidence-based appropriate-use criteria through a clinical decision support system when ordering advanced diagnostic imaging exams. The ESR and the National Decision Support Company are developing "ESR iGuide", a clinical decision support system for European imaging referral guidelines using ESR imaging referral guidelines based on ACR Appropriateness Criteria. In many regions of the world, the situation is different and quite diverse, depending on the specific features of health care systems in different countries, but there are, unlike in the USA and EU, no legal obligations to implement imaging referral guidelines into the clinical practice. Imaging referral guidelines and clinical decision support implementation is a complex issue everywhere and the legal environment surrounding it even more so; how they will be implemented into the clinical practice in different areas of the world needs yet to be decided. MAIN MESSAGES: • Implementation of imaging referral guidelines in clinical routine is needed. • Potential benefits are improved appropriateness in referrals and reduction of unnecessary radiation exposure. • The educational benefits include new insights through data collection and reporting. • The system will potentially highlight the lack in quality or availability of equipment.

Clinical outcome of head and neck cancer patients: a comparison between ENT patients referred via the 2 weeks wait pathway and alternative routes in the UK health system.

2 weeks wait (2ww) referral was intended to improve cancer outcomes in the UK. However, a previous study found that 2ww failed to detect early stage head and neck cancer. There is no current study to examine the survival outcome of head and neck cancer patients diagnosed on 2ww and non-2ww pathways. The aim of this study is to compare the outcome of cancer patients diagnosed on these pathways. We performed a retrospective review of head and neck cancer patients diagnosed between 2009 and 2013 in the ENT Department at Mid-Yorkshire NHS Hospitals Trust. Gender, age, disease staging, treatment modalities, route of referrals along with survival data were documented. Survival analysis was performed for 2ww and non-2ww cancer patients. There were 4123 patients referred on 2ww during the study period. 147 patients were diagnosed with cancers on 2ww and 89 patients were diagnosed on non-2ww. There were no statistical differences in clinical staging (p = 0.416) and overall survival (p = 0.376) between 2ww and non-2ww patients. This study failed to demonstrate a better overall survival in head and neck cancer patients diagnosed on 2ww pathway within the ENT cohort. Current referral system needs to be refined to improve the survival outcome in head and neck cancer patients.

Differences in central and non-central keratoconus, and their effect on the objective screening thresholds for keratoconus.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the differences in central and non-central keratoconus (based on cone location), and their effect on the objective screening thresholds for keratoconus. METHODS: This comparative case series was performed at tertiary care cornea and refractive surgery service. Three groups were made: KC apex within central 2 mm (central keratoconus, n = 50), apex outside central 2mm (non-central keratoconus, n = 50) and normal controls (n = 100, with 50 cases each with apex within and outside central 2 mm). All cases underwent clinical evaluation and corneal topography (CSO, Sirius, Italy). Apex keratometry (ApexK), simulated keratometry at 3 mm (SimK), central corneal thickness (CCT) and minimum corneal thickness (MCT), anterior corneal higher-order aberrations root mean square (HOARMS), and Zernike's coefficients up to fourth order at different zones were measured. RESULTS: In spite of the keratoconic groups having comparable ApexK (p > 0.05), central keratoconus had higher SimK and thinner CCT and MCT (p < 0.001). HOARMS was significantly more for central keratoconus at 3 mm zones. These findings had moderate to large effect size (Cohen's d). Receiver operating curve analysis was carried out to compare central keratoconus and non-central keratoconus with control group. ApexK and HOARMS had best discriminative parameters. Using single parametric suspicion cut-offs of 'either SimK steep >47.2 D or CCT < 491.6 µ' had a good sensitivity (0.98) for central keratoconus, but not for non-central keratoconus (0.80). Changing this cut-off to 'either SimK steep K ≥ 45.8 D or CCT ≤ 503 µ' gave a sensitivity and specificity of 0.95 and 0.87 for non-central keratoconus and 0.99 and 0.87 for central keratoconus. CONCLUSION: Non-central keratoconus has lesser effect on SimK, pachymetry and smaller-aperture HOARMS. Using 'SimK steep >47.2 D or CCT < 491.6 µ' may miss timely referral for topography in many of these cases. Using more stringent criteria of SimK steep K ≥ 45.8 D or CCT ≤ 503 µ to get a corneal topography done to rule out keratoconus is recommended, especially in cohorts with higher risk.

Optimizing the pre-referral workup for gastroenterology and hepatology specialty care: consensus using the Delphi method.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Specialty care referrals have doubled in the last decade. Optimization of the pre-referral workup by a primary care doctor can lead to a more efficient first specialty visit with the patient. Guidance regarding pre-referral laboratory testing is a first step towards improving the specialty referral process. Our aim was to establish consensus regarding appropriate pre-referral workup for common gastrointestinal and liver conditions. METHODS: The Delphi method was used to establish local consensus for recommending certain laboratory tests prior to specialty referral for 13 clinical conditions. Seven conditions from The University of Michigan outpatient referral guidelines were used as a baseline. An expert panel of three PCPs and nine gastroenterologists from three academic hospitals participated in three iterative rounds of electronic surveys. Each panellist ranked each test using a 5-point Likert scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree). Local panellists could recommend additional tests for the initial diagnoses, and also recommended additional diagnoses needing guidelines: iron deficiency anaemia, abdominal pain, irritable bowel syndrome, fatty liver disease, liver mass and cirrhosis. Consensus was defined as ≥70% of experts scoring ≥4 (agree or strongly agree). RESULTS: Applying Delphi methodology to extrapolate externally developed referral guidelines for local implementation resulted in considerable modifications. For some conditions, many tests from the external group were eliminated by the local group (abdominal bloating; iron deficiency anaemia; irritable bowel syndrome). In contrast, for chronic diarrhoea, abnormal liver enzymes and viral hepatitis, all/most original tests were retained with additional tests added. For liver mass, fatty liver disease and cirrhosis, there was high concordance among the panel with few tests added or eliminated. CONCLUSIONS: Consideration of externally developed referral guidelines using a consensus-building process leads to significant local tailoring and adaption. Our next steps include implementation and dissemination of these guidelines and evaluating their impact on care efficiency in clinical practice.

Clinical imaging guidelines part 2: Risks, benefits, barriers, and solutions.

A recent international meeting was convened by two United Nations bodies to focus on international collaboration on clinical appropriateness/referral guidelines for use in medical imaging. This paper, the second of 4 from this technical meeting, addresses barriers to the successful development/deployment of clinical imaging guidelines and means of overcoming them. It reflects the discussions of the attendees, and the issues identified are treated under 7 headings: ■ Practical Strategy for Development and Deployment of Guidelines; ■ Governance Arrangements and Concerns with Deployment of Guidelines; ■ Finance, Sustainability, Reimbursement, and Related Issues; ■ Identifying Benefits and Radiation Risks from Radiological Examinations; ■ Information Given to Patients and the Public, and Consent Issues; ■ Special Concerns Related to Pregnancy; and ■ The Research Agenda. Examples of topics identified include the observation that guideline development is a global task and there is no case for continuing it as the project of the few professional organizations that have been brave enough to make the long-term commitment required. Advocacy for guidelines should include the expectations that they will facilitate: (1) better health care delivery; (2) lower cost of that delivery; with (3) reduced radiation dose and associated health risks. Radiation protection issues should not be isolated; rather, they should be integrated with the overall health care picture. The type of dose/radiation risk information to be provided with guidelines should include the uncertainty involved and advice on application of the precautionary principle with patients. This principle may be taken as an extension of the well-established medical principle of "first do no harm."