How many medical requests for US, body CT, and musculoskeletal MR exams in outpatients are inadequate?

Francesco Sardanelli, Matteo Quarenghi, Alfonso Fausto, Alberto Aliprandi, Maria Teresa Cuppone

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

PURPOSE: Our aim was to evaluate how many medical requests for US, CT and MR outpatients exams are inadequate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated three series of consecutive requests for outpatients exams, distinguishing firstly the adequate from the inadequate requests. The inadequate requests were classified as: (A) absence of real indication; (B) lacking or vague clinical query; (C) absence of important information on patient's status. US requests concerned 282 patients for 300 body segments, as follows: neck (n=50); upper abdomen (n=95); lower abdomen (n=12); upper and lower abdomen (n=84); musculoskeletal (n=32); other body segments (n=27). CT requests concerned 280 patients for 300 body segments, as follows: chest (n=67); abdomen (n=77); musculoskeletal (n=94); other body segments (n=62). MR musculoskeletal requests concerned 138 patients for 150 body segments, as follows: knee (n=87); ankle (n=13); shoulder (n=28) , other body segments (n=22). RESULTS: A total of 228/300 US requests (76%) were inadequate, ranging from 66% (musculoskeletal) to 86% (neck), classified as: A, 21/228 (9%); B, 130/228 (57%); C, 77/228 (34%). A total of 231/300 (77%) body CT requests were inadequate, ranging from 72% (chest) to 86% (musculoskeletal), classified as: A, 22/231(10%); B, 88/231(38%); C, 121/231(52%). A total of 124/150 (83%) MR musculoskeletal requests were inadequate, ranging from 69% (ankle) to 89% (knee), classified as: A, 12/124(10%); B, 50/124(40%); C, 62/124 (50%). No significant difference was found among the levels of inadequacy for the three techniques and among the body segments for each of the three techniques. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of the medical requests for outpatient exams turned out to be inadequate. A large communication gap between referring physicians and radiologists needs to be filled.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)229-233
Number of pages5
JournalRadiologia Medica
Volume109
Issue number3
Publication statusPublished - Mar 2005

Fingerprint

Abdomen
Outpatients
Ankle
Knee
Neck
Thorax
Communication
Physicians

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Sardanelli, F., Quarenghi, M., Fausto, A., Aliprandi, A., & Cuppone, M. T. (2005). How many medical requests for US, body CT, and musculoskeletal MR exams in outpatients are inadequate? Radiologia Medica, 109(3), 229-233.

How many medical requests for US, body CT, and musculoskeletal MR exams in outpatients are inadequate? / Sardanelli, Francesco; Quarenghi, Matteo; Fausto, Alfonso; Aliprandi, Alberto; Cuppone, Maria Teresa.

In: Radiologia Medica, Vol. 109, No. 3, 03.2005, p. 229-233.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Sardanelli, F, Quarenghi, M, Fausto, A, Aliprandi, A & Cuppone, MT 2005, 'How many medical requests for US, body CT, and musculoskeletal MR exams in outpatients are inadequate?', Radiologia Medica, vol. 109, no. 3, pp. 229-233.
Sardanelli, Francesco ; Quarenghi, Matteo ; Fausto, Alfonso ; Aliprandi, Alberto ; Cuppone, Maria Teresa. / How many medical requests for US, body CT, and musculoskeletal MR exams in outpatients are inadequate?. In: Radiologia Medica. 2005 ; Vol. 109, No. 3. pp. 229-233.
@article{f88a8459e7994bbb9be0732037af0348,
title = "How many medical requests for US, body CT, and musculoskeletal MR exams in outpatients are inadequate?",
abstract = "PURPOSE: Our aim was to evaluate how many medical requests for US, CT and MR outpatients exams are inadequate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated three series of consecutive requests for outpatients exams, distinguishing firstly the adequate from the inadequate requests. The inadequate requests were classified as: (A) absence of real indication; (B) lacking or vague clinical query; (C) absence of important information on patient's status. US requests concerned 282 patients for 300 body segments, as follows: neck (n=50); upper abdomen (n=95); lower abdomen (n=12); upper and lower abdomen (n=84); musculoskeletal (n=32); other body segments (n=27). CT requests concerned 280 patients for 300 body segments, as follows: chest (n=67); abdomen (n=77); musculoskeletal (n=94); other body segments (n=62). MR musculoskeletal requests concerned 138 patients for 150 body segments, as follows: knee (n=87); ankle (n=13); shoulder (n=28) , other body segments (n=22). RESULTS: A total of 228/300 US requests (76{\%}) were inadequate, ranging from 66{\%} (musculoskeletal) to 86{\%} (neck), classified as: A, 21/228 (9{\%}); B, 130/228 (57{\%}); C, 77/228 (34{\%}). A total of 231/300 (77{\%}) body CT requests were inadequate, ranging from 72{\%} (chest) to 86{\%} (musculoskeletal), classified as: A, 22/231(10{\%}); B, 88/231(38{\%}); C, 121/231(52{\%}). A total of 124/150 (83{\%}) MR musculoskeletal requests were inadequate, ranging from 69{\%} (ankle) to 89{\%} (knee), classified as: A, 12/124(10{\%}); B, 50/124(40{\%}); C, 62/124 (50{\%}). No significant difference was found among the levels of inadequacy for the three techniques and among the body segments for each of the three techniques. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of the medical requests for outpatient exams turned out to be inadequate. A large communication gap between referring physicians and radiologists needs to be filled.",
author = "Francesco Sardanelli and Matteo Quarenghi and Alfonso Fausto and Alberto Aliprandi and Cuppone, {Maria Teresa}",
year = "2005",
month = "3",
language = "English",
volume = "109",
pages = "229--233",
journal = "Radiologia Medica",
issn = "0033-8362",
publisher = "Springer-Verlag Italia s.r.l.",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - How many medical requests for US, body CT, and musculoskeletal MR exams in outpatients are inadequate?

AU - Sardanelli, Francesco

AU - Quarenghi, Matteo

AU - Fausto, Alfonso

AU - Aliprandi, Alberto

AU - Cuppone, Maria Teresa

PY - 2005/3

Y1 - 2005/3

N2 - PURPOSE: Our aim was to evaluate how many medical requests for US, CT and MR outpatients exams are inadequate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated three series of consecutive requests for outpatients exams, distinguishing firstly the adequate from the inadequate requests. The inadequate requests were classified as: (A) absence of real indication; (B) lacking or vague clinical query; (C) absence of important information on patient's status. US requests concerned 282 patients for 300 body segments, as follows: neck (n=50); upper abdomen (n=95); lower abdomen (n=12); upper and lower abdomen (n=84); musculoskeletal (n=32); other body segments (n=27). CT requests concerned 280 patients for 300 body segments, as follows: chest (n=67); abdomen (n=77); musculoskeletal (n=94); other body segments (n=62). MR musculoskeletal requests concerned 138 patients for 150 body segments, as follows: knee (n=87); ankle (n=13); shoulder (n=28) , other body segments (n=22). RESULTS: A total of 228/300 US requests (76%) were inadequate, ranging from 66% (musculoskeletal) to 86% (neck), classified as: A, 21/228 (9%); B, 130/228 (57%); C, 77/228 (34%). A total of 231/300 (77%) body CT requests were inadequate, ranging from 72% (chest) to 86% (musculoskeletal), classified as: A, 22/231(10%); B, 88/231(38%); C, 121/231(52%). A total of 124/150 (83%) MR musculoskeletal requests were inadequate, ranging from 69% (ankle) to 89% (knee), classified as: A, 12/124(10%); B, 50/124(40%); C, 62/124 (50%). No significant difference was found among the levels of inadequacy for the three techniques and among the body segments for each of the three techniques. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of the medical requests for outpatient exams turned out to be inadequate. A large communication gap between referring physicians and radiologists needs to be filled.

AB - PURPOSE: Our aim was to evaluate how many medical requests for US, CT and MR outpatients exams are inadequate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated three series of consecutive requests for outpatients exams, distinguishing firstly the adequate from the inadequate requests. The inadequate requests were classified as: (A) absence of real indication; (B) lacking or vague clinical query; (C) absence of important information on patient's status. US requests concerned 282 patients for 300 body segments, as follows: neck (n=50); upper abdomen (n=95); lower abdomen (n=12); upper and lower abdomen (n=84); musculoskeletal (n=32); other body segments (n=27). CT requests concerned 280 patients for 300 body segments, as follows: chest (n=67); abdomen (n=77); musculoskeletal (n=94); other body segments (n=62). MR musculoskeletal requests concerned 138 patients for 150 body segments, as follows: knee (n=87); ankle (n=13); shoulder (n=28) , other body segments (n=22). RESULTS: A total of 228/300 US requests (76%) were inadequate, ranging from 66% (musculoskeletal) to 86% (neck), classified as: A, 21/228 (9%); B, 130/228 (57%); C, 77/228 (34%). A total of 231/300 (77%) body CT requests were inadequate, ranging from 72% (chest) to 86% (musculoskeletal), classified as: A, 22/231(10%); B, 88/231(38%); C, 121/231(52%). A total of 124/150 (83%) MR musculoskeletal requests were inadequate, ranging from 69% (ankle) to 89% (knee), classified as: A, 12/124(10%); B, 50/124(40%); C, 62/124 (50%). No significant difference was found among the levels of inadequacy for the three techniques and among the body segments for each of the three techniques. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of the medical requests for outpatient exams turned out to be inadequate. A large communication gap between referring physicians and radiologists needs to be filled.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=18244395356&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=18244395356&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 15775891

AN - SCOPUS:18244395356

VL - 109

SP - 229

EP - 233

JO - Radiologia Medica

JF - Radiologia Medica

SN - 0033-8362

IS - 3

ER -