Justification and active guideline implementation for spine radiography referrals in primary care.

Background Spinal disorders are a major public health problem. Appropriate diagnostic imaging is an essential part in the management of back complaints. Nevertheless, inappropriate imaging increases population collective dose and health costs without improving outcome. Purpose To determine the effects of active implementation of referral guidelines on the number and justification of spine radiography in primary care in one city. Material and Methods Specified guidelines for spine radiography were distributed to referring practitioners altogether three times during the study period. Educational lectures were provided before the guidelines were taken into use. The guidelines were also made available via the intranet. The number of spine radiography referrals during similar 6-month periods in the year preceding the interventions and the following 2 years was analyzed. Justification of 448 spine radiographs was assessed similarly. Results After interventions, the total number of spine radiography examinations decreased by 48% (P < 0.001) and that of cervical spine radiography by 46% ( P < 0.001), thoracic spine by 53% ( P < 0.001), and lumbar spine by 47% ( P < 0.001). The results persisted after 1-year follow-up. Before interventions, 24% of the cervical, 46% of the thoracic, and 32% of the lumbar spine radiography referrals were justified. After interventions, only justification of lumbar spine radiography improved significantly, 64% being justified ( P = 0.005). Conclusion Spine radiography in primary care can be reduced significantly by active referral guideline implementation. The proportion of inappropriate radiography was unexpectedly high. Thus, further education and studies concerning the appropriate use of spinal radiography seems to be needed.

Effect of display type and room illuminance in chest radiographs.

OBJECTIVES: To compare diagnostic accuracy in the detection of subtle chest lesions on digital chest radiographs using medical-grade displays, consumer-grade displays, and tablet devices under bright and dim ambient light. METHODS: Five experienced radiologists independently assessed 50 chest radiographs (32 with subtle pulmonary findings and 18 without apparent findings) under bright (510 lx) and dim (16 lx) ambient lighting. Computed tomography was used as the reference standard for interstitial and nodular lesions and follow-up chest radiograph for pneumothorax. Diagnostic accuracy and sensitivity were calculated for assessments carried out in all displays and compared using the McNemar test. The level of significance was set to p < 0.05. RESULTS: Significant differences in sensitivity between the assessments under bright and dim lighting were found among consumer-grade displays in interstitial opacities with, and in pneumothorax without, Digital Imaging and Communication in Medicine-Grayscale Standard Display Function (DICOM-GSDF) calibration. Compared to 6 megapixel (MP) display under bright lighting, sensitivity in pneumothorax was lower in the tablet device and the consumer-grade display. Sensitivity in interstitial opacities was lower in the DICOM-GSDF calibrated consumer-grade display. CONCLUSIONS: A consumer-grade display with or without DICOM-GSDF calibration or a tablet device is not suitable for reading digital chest radiographs in bright lighting. No significant differences were observed between five displays in dim light. KEY POINTS: • Ambient lighting affects performance of consumer-grade displays (with or without DICOM-GSDF calibration). • Bright light decreases detection of pneumothorax on non-medical displays. • Bright light decreases detection of interstitial opacities on DICOM-GSDF-calibrated, consumer-grade displays. • Dim light is sufficient to detect subtle chest lesions from all displays.