Are general practitioners referring patients with low back pain for CTs appropriately according to the guidelines: a retrospective review of 3609 medical records in Newfoundland using routinely collected data.

BACKGROUND: CT Imaging is often requested for patients with low back pain (LBP) by their general practitioners. It is currently unknown what reasons are common for these referrals and if CT images are ordered according to guidelines in one province in Canada, which has high rates of CT imaging. The objective of this study is to categorise lumbar spine CT referrals into serious spinal pathology, radicular syndrome, and non-specific LBP and evaluate the appropriateness of CT imaging referrals from general practitioners for patients with LBP. METHODS: A retrospective medical record review of electronic health records was performed in one health region in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada. Inclusion criteria were lumbar spine CT referrals ordered by general practitioners for adults ≥18 years, and performed between January 1st-December 31st, 2016. Each CT referral was identified from linked databases (Meditech and PACS). To the study authors' knowledge, guidelines regarding when to refer patients with low back pain for CT imaging had not been actively disseminated to general practitioners or implemented at clinics/hospitals during this time period. Data were manually extracted and categorised into three groups: red flag conditions (judged to be an appropriate referral), radicular syndrome (judged be unclear appropriateness), or nonspecific LBP (determined to be inappropriate). RESULTS: Three thousand six hundred nine lumbar spine CTs were included from 2016. The mean age of participants was 54.7 (SD 14 years), with females comprising 54.6% of referrals. 1.9% of lumbar CT referrals were missing/unclear, 6.5% of CTs were ordered on a red-flag suspicion, 75.6% for radicular syndromes, and 16.0% for non-specific LBP; only 6.5% of referrals were clearly appropriate. Key information including patient history and clinical exams performed at appointment were often missing from referrals. CONCLUSION: This audit found high proportions of inappropriate or questionable referrals for lumbar spine CT and many were missing information needed to categorise. Further research to understand the drivers of inappropriate imaging and cost to the healthcare system would be beneficial.

Cesarean delivery rates among family physicians versus obstetricians: a population-based cohort study using instrumental variable methods.

BACKGROUND: Previous research suggests that family physicians have rates of cesarean delivery that are lower than or equivalent to those for obstetricians, but adjustments for risk differences in these analyses may have been inadequate. We used an econometric method to adjust for observed and unobserved factors affecting the risk of cesarean delivery among women attended by family physicians versus obstetricians. METHODS: This retrospective population-based cohort study included all Canadian (except Quebec) hospital deliveries by family physicians and obstetricians between Apr. 1, 2006, and Mar. 31, 2009. We excluded women with multiple gestations, and newborns with a birth weight less than 500 g or gestational age less than 20 weeks. We estimated the relative risk of cesarean delivery using instrumental-variable-adjusted and logistic regression. RESULTS: The final cohort included 776 299 women who gave birth in 390 hospitals. The risk of cesarean delivery was 27.3%, and the mean proportion of deliveries by family physicians was 26.9% (standard deviation 23.8%). The relative risk of cesarean delivery for family physicians versus obstetricians was 0.48 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.41-0.56) with logistic regression and 1.27 (95% CI 1.02-1.57) with instrumental-variable-adjusted regression. INTERPRETATION: Our conventional analyses suggest that family physicians have a lower rate of cesarean delivery than obstetricians, but instrumental variable analyses suggest the opposite. Because instrumental variable methods adjust for unmeasured factors and traditional methods do not, the large discrepancy between these estimates of risk suggests that clinical and/or sociocultural factors affecting the decision to perform cesarean delivery may not be accounted for in our database.