An investigation of lumbar spine magnetic resonance referrals in two Irish university teaching centres: Radiology clinical judgement versus iRefer guideline compliance.

INTRODUCTION: With the annual increase in medical imaging demand, the appropriateness of the lumbar spine magnetic resonance imaging LSMRI referrals is worldwide gaining attention. This study aims to determine the appropriateness of LSMRI referrals and compare radiology clinical decisions to iRefer compliance based solely on referral text content. METHODS: Referral text was extracted from 1021 LSMRI referrals. Two review panels were recruited: three expert radiologists and three MRI radiographers. Radiologists classified cases as indicated or not indicated for scanning based on their clinical judgement. The radiographers classified based solely on iRefer guidelines. Majority voting for each case was applied to both review panels and reviewer agreement was tested using Kappa analysis. Logistic regression models were developed to identify medical disciplines associated with high rates of indicated referrals. RESULTS: 21.7% and 11.9% of the cases were found not indicated for MRI for radiologists and radiographers, respectively. Radiology review identified 18% of the GPs referrals as not indicated and 17% in the radiographers' review. Panel agreement was fair: Kappa values of 0.23 and0.26 for the radiologists and radiographers respectively. Neurosurgery was associated with the highest rate of indicated referrals across both review panels: oncology referrals raised the highest number of open comments. CONCLUSION: The study identified a lower number of not indicated referrals compared to previous research. Findings indicate the importance of both guidelines compliance and clinical judgement to optimise practice. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Findings in this study found that even when strict instructions were given to the MR radiographers to vet referrals using the iRefer guidelines, ambiguity within the guidelines resulted in variations in decision-making. This suggests that detailed protocols are required to support radiographers in the vetting process to ensure a standardised approach.

Effectiveness of COVID-19 diagnosis and management tools: A review.

OBJECTIVE: To review the available literature concerning the effectiveness of the COVID-19 diagnostic tools. BACKGROUND: With the absence of specific treatment/vaccines for the coronavirus COVID-19, the most appropriate approach to control this infection is to quarantine people and isolate symptomatic people and suspected or infected cases. Although real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay is considered the first tool to make a definitive diagnosis of COVID-19 disease, the high false negative rate, low sensitivity, limited supplies and strict requirements for laboratory settings might delay accurate diagnosis. Computed tomography (CT) has been reported as an important tool to identify and investigate suspected patients with COVID-19 disease at early stage. KEY FINDINGS: RT-PCR shows low sensitivity (60-71%) in diagnosing patients with COVID-19 infection compared to the CT chest. Several studies reported that chest CT scans show typical imaging features in all patients with COVID-19. This high sensitivity and initial presentation in CT chest can be helpful in rectifying false negative results obtained from RT-PCR. As COVID-19 has similar manifestations to other pneumonia diseases, artificial intelligence (AI) might help radiologists to differentiate COVID-19 from other pneumonia diseases. CONCLUSION: Although CT scan is a powerful tool in COVID-19 diagnosis, it is not sufficient to detect COVID-19 alone due to the low specificity (25%), and challenges that radiologists might face in differentiating COVID-19 from other viral pneumonia on chest CT scans. AI might help radiologists to differentiate COVID-19 from other pneumonia diseases. IMPLICATION FOR PRACTICE: Both RT-PCR and CT tests together would increase sensitivity and improve quarantine efficacy, an impact neither could achieve alone.

A study to explore opinions and attitudes of Saudi Arabian MR professionals on the current status of routine MR scanner quality assurance testing in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

INTRODUCTION: Internationally it is recommended that quality assurance (QA) testing of MR systems is the responsibility of MR professionals to ensure efficient scanner performance. This study aims to explore the opinions and attitudes of MR professionals in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) regarding the current status of routine QA testing within MRI departments. METHODS: A qualitative approach was adopted, with MR professionals working in public, semi-public and private hospitals in the KSA invited to participate in this interview-based study. A total of 52 individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with purposive sampling of MR radiographers and medical physicists based at 19 major centres across the three main geographical regions in the KSA. Data went through duration of coding following qualitative data analysis framework based on Miles and Huberman's philosophical underpinnings. RESULTS: The findings demonstrated that 89.5% (n = 17) of the MRI departments surveyed rely on the service provided by the equipment vendor in order to ensure ongoing MR scanner performance. Overall, the level of MR radiographer participation in weekly MR scanner QA testing was low (13.3%, n = 3). Lack of legal requirement, professional organisation and knowledge were highlighted as the principal factors limiting radiographer involvement in the weekly MR QA in the KSA. CONCLUSION: The results of this study support the establishment of a legal requirement and national policy in order to encourage radiographers in the KSA to take an active role in MRI QA testing to enable suboptimal MR scanner performance to be identified before it becomes clinically evident.

An investigation of Saudi Arabian MR radiographers' knowledge and confidence in relation to MR image-quality-related errors.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate MR radiographers' current knowledge base and confidence level in relation to quality-related errors within MR images. METHOD: Thirty-five MR radiographers within 16 MRI departments in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) independently reviewed a prepared set of 25 MR images, naming the error, specifying the error-correction strategy, scoring how confident they were in recognising this error and suggesting a correction strategy by using a scale of 1-100. The datasets were obtained from MRI departments in the KSA to represent the range of images which depicted excellent, acceptable and poor image quality. RESULTS: The findings demonstrated a low level of radiographer knowledge in identifying the type of quality errors and when suggesting an appropriate strategy to rectify those errors. The findings show that only (n = 7) 20% of the radiographers could correctly name what the quality errors were in 70% of the dataset, and none of the radiographers correctly specified the error-correction strategy in more than 68% of the MR datasets. The confidence level of radiography participants in their ability to state the type of image quality errors was significantly different (p < 0.001) for who work in different hospital types. CONCLUSION: The findings of this study suggest there is a need to establish a national association for MR radiographers to monitor training and the development of postgraduate MRI education in Saudi Arabia to improve the current status of the MR radiographers' knowledge and direct high quality service delivery.