7. CT and MRI referral practices under mandatory social health insurance
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35805/BSK2024IV007Жүктеулер
Аңдатпа
Background. Modern imaging techniques, such as computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), are vital for diagnosing and monitoring diseases. Despite their value, challenges include high costs, radiation risks, and limited accessibility. Effective use requires collaboration between general practitioners (GPs) and radiologists. Misguided referrals burden healthcare systems, while underuse delays diagnoses. Objective. This study assesses GPs’ awareness of CT/MRI indications, examines challenges in referrals under the mandatory social health insurance framework, and analyzes radiologists’ views on unjustified referrals.
Methods. Two surveys were conducted: one among 108 radiologists in Almaty and Astana and another among 163 GPs in Almaty and the Almaty region. Questionnaires included closed and open-ended questions, and responses were analyzed to identify barriers and optimize diagnostic processes.
Results. Among radiologists, 56.5% reported more than five unjustified referrals per month, with CT being the most overused modality (80.6%). Reasons included GPs’ lack of knowledge about indications (66.7%) and patient pressure (67.6%). GPs cited limited mandatory social health insurance framework quotas (29.3%) and long waiting times (19.9%) as significant barriers. Both groups emphasized the need for clear clinical guidelines, enhanced education, and better interprofessional communication.
Conclusion: Systemic improvements in radiology services are necessary. Key recommendations include developing national clinical guidelines, educating GPs on CT/ MRI indications, and streamlining administrative processes. These measures will reduce unjustified imaging, improve resource use, and enhance patient care.
Кілт сөздер
radiology, CT, MRI, general practitioners, mandatory social health insurance
Әдебиеттер тізімі
- Brenner, D. J., &Hall, E. J. (2007). Computed tomography—an increas-ing source of radiation exposure. New England Journal of Medicine, 357(22), 2277-2284
- Kressel, H. Y., & Van Tongerloo, A. (2019). Optimizing imaging utiliza-tion: Challenges and solutions. Ra-diology, 291(3), 499-508
- World Health Organization (2016). WHO guidelines on radiation protec-tion in diagnostic and interventional radiology
- European Society of Radiology (ESR) (2017). ESR concept paper on val-ue-based radiology. Insights into Im-aging, 8(6), 447-454
- Mills, P., & Palmer, B. (2020). The role of interdisciplinary collaboration in reducing unnecessary diagnostic imaging. Journal of Clinical Radiolo-gy and Imaging, 4(2), 75-82
- Griffey, R. T., & Pines, J. M. (2011). Reducing the overuse of diagnostic imaging in the emergency depart-ment: An evidence-based approach
- Bohannon, L. S., &Malley, D. (2018). Educational strategies for improv-ing referral appropriateness for advanced imaging. Journal of Con-tinuing Education in the Health Pro-fessions, 38(4), 223-230
- Mendiratta-Lala, M., et al. (2020). Value of evidence-based guidelines for imaging appropriateness: The ACR Appropriateness Criteria. Jour-nal of the American College of Ra-diology, 17(7), 904-912
- Fletcher, R. H., &Fletcher, S. W. (2020).Clinicalepidemiology: The-essentials. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
- Schnyder, P., et al. (2015). Communi-cation between referring physicians and radiologists: Systematic review of barriers and solutions. Insights into Imaging, 6(5), 573-583
- Rosenkrantz, A. B., et al. (2015). Strategies to improve appropriate-ness in advanced diagnostic imaging. American Journal of Roentgenology, 204(6), 1196-1202
- Pandharipande, P. V., et al. (2016). Impact of medical imaging on patient care. Radiology, 279(3), 678-689
- Meulepas JM, Hauptmann M, Lubin JH, Shuryak I, Brenner DJ. (2018). Is there Unmeasured Indication Bias in Radiation-Related Cancer Risk Esti-mates from Studies of Computed To-mography? Radiat Res. Feb;189(2): 128-135. doi:10.1667/RR14807.1
- Meyer, J. R., &Luetmer, P. H. (2017). Role of clinical decision support tools in optimizing imaging utiliza-tion. Neuroimaging Clinics of North America, 27(4), 515-526
- Berland, L. L., et al. (2018). Appropri-ateness criteria in radiology: Devel-opment and application. Radiology, 288(3), 658-664
- Harolds, J. A., et al. (2016). Clinical decision-making in radiology: Barri-ers and facilitators. Radiology Lead-ership Institute Reports, 8(1), 12-19
- Halm BM, Franke AA, Lai JF, et al.(2015). Pilot study for the estab-lishment of biomarkers for radiation damage after computed tomogra-phy in children. Hawaii J Med Public Health. Mar 2015;74 (3):112-9
- Brady, A. P., et al. (2017).Radiolo-gyeducation for non-radiologists: Building bridges. Insights into Imag-ing, 8(2), 137-144
- Jha, S., &Topol, E. J. (2016).Enhanc-ingpatientcarethroughdigitalradiolo-gy. Journal of Digital Imaging, 29(5), 564-571
- Boone, J. M., et al. (2014). Radiation dose management in CT: Interna-tional trends and future directions. Journal of Radiology Protection, 34(3), R25-R37