Systematic review of interventions aimed at improving the quality of referrals to radiology

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q2 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Chi Lap Nicholas Tsang, David Luong, Troy Stapleton
{"title":"Systematic review of interventions aimed at improving the quality of referrals to radiology","authors":"Chi Lap Nicholas Tsang,&nbsp;David Luong,&nbsp;Troy Stapleton","doi":"10.1111/1754-9485.13736","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>Despite ubiquitous use of medical imaging in daily medical practice, the quality of referrals varies significantly across a variety of practice types and locations. This systematic review summarises studies in the literature that have employed interventions aimed at improving radiology referrals, excluding clinical decision support software. A systematic review of literature was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Cochrane. Two reviewers independently identified studies for inclusion. All studies that included interventions with any outcome measure were included. Any irrelevant studies, non-English studies or not retrievable studies were excluded. Studies were grouped into Education, Feedback, Rationing, Penalties, and Other. The outcomes of the studies were summarised and qualitatively analysed due to anticipated heterogeneity. Four thousand six hundred and forty-two studies were identified throughout PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Cochrane. One hundred and eighty-seven duplicates were removed and 4436 abstracts were screened. Two hundred and forty were identified on the first phase of the screening with 167 then excluded for non-relevancy. Seventy-five full studies were included in the final analysis following the addition of 2 additional studies. Fifty-seven studies were grouped into Education, 10 into Feedback, 4 into Rationing, 8 into Penalties, 9 into Other and 11 containing multiple. Eighty-four percent of the studies reported an improvement in the quality of the referrals. Despite a variable rate of quality referrals, there are many interventions that radiology departments across the world can utilise to improve the referral process.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":16218,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology","volume":"68 6","pages":"687-695"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1754-9485.13736","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Despite ubiquitous use of medical imaging in daily medical practice, the quality of referrals varies significantly across a variety of practice types and locations. This systematic review summarises studies in the literature that have employed interventions aimed at improving radiology referrals, excluding clinical decision support software. A systematic review of literature was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Cochrane. Two reviewers independently identified studies for inclusion. All studies that included interventions with any outcome measure were included. Any irrelevant studies, non-English studies or not retrievable studies were excluded. Studies were grouped into Education, Feedback, Rationing, Penalties, and Other. The outcomes of the studies were summarised and qualitatively analysed due to anticipated heterogeneity. Four thousand six hundred and forty-two studies were identified throughout PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Cochrane. One hundred and eighty-seven duplicates were removed and 4436 abstracts were screened. Two hundred and forty were identified on the first phase of the screening with 167 then excluded for non-relevancy. Seventy-five full studies were included in the final analysis following the addition of 2 additional studies. Fifty-seven studies were grouped into Education, 10 into Feedback, 4 into Rationing, 8 into Penalties, 9 into Other and 11 containing multiple. Eighty-four percent of the studies reported an improvement in the quality of the referrals. Despite a variable rate of quality referrals, there are many interventions that radiology departments across the world can utilise to improve the referral process.

系统回顾旨在提高放射科转诊质量的干预措施。
尽管医学影像在日常医疗实践中的应用无处不在,但不同类型和地点的医疗机构的转诊质量却存在很大差异。本系统性综述总结了采用干预措施改善放射科转诊的文献研究,但不包括临床决策支持软件。我们在 PubMed、EMBASE、Scopus 和 Cochrane 上对文献进行了系统性综述。两名审稿人独立确定了纳入的研究。所有包含任何结果测量干预措施的研究均被纳入。任何无关研究、非英语研究或无法检索的研究均被排除在外。研究分为教育、反馈、配给、惩罚和其他。由于预期存在异质性,因此对研究结果进行了总结和定性分析。在 PubMed、EMBASE、Scopus 和 Cochrane 中找到了 4642 项研究。删除了 187 项重复内容,筛选了 4436 份摘要。第一阶段筛选出 240 篇研究,其中 167 篇因不相关而被排除。在增加 2 项研究后,75 项完整研究被纳入最终分析。57 项研究分为教育类、10 项反馈类、4 项配给类、8 项惩罚类、9 项其他类和 11 项多重类。84%的研究报告称转诊质量有所提高。尽管转诊质量参差不齐,但全世界的放射科都可以利用许多干预措施来改善转诊流程。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
6.20%
发文量
133
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology (formerly Australasian Radiology) is the official journal of The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists, publishing articles of scientific excellence in radiology and radiation oncology. Manuscripts are judged on the basis of their contribution of original data and ideas or interpretation. All articles are peer reviewed.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信