Imaging incidence and type in primary care patients with low back pain: a cross-sectional study on new referrals to an Australian specialist spinal surgical centre.

IF 1.1 Q4 PRIMARY HEALTH CARE
Isaac J Tennant, Yun-Hom Yau, Derek Yull, Peter Murphy, Ian R Whittle
{"title":"Imaging incidence and type in primary care patients with low back pain: a cross-sectional study on new referrals to an Australian specialist spinal surgical centre.","authors":"Isaac J Tennant,&nbsp;Yun-Hom Yau,&nbsp;Derek Yull,&nbsp;Peter Murphy,&nbsp;Ian R Whittle","doi":"10.1071/HC22127","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Introduction Low back pain (LBP) is common and a significant cause of morbidity. Many patients receive inappropriate imaging for LBP in primary care. Aim To explore the incidence and type of spinal imaging conducted for LBP patients referred from general practice for specialist surgical opinion, and evaluate whether imaging conformed to clinical guidelines. Methods Audit of a sequential cohort (n  = 100) of new LBP patients referred from primary care for specialist opinion at a suburban Australian capital city independent Spinal Centre. Results In the 6 months before referral, 90% (95% CI 83-95%) of patients underwent spinal imaging. Imaging was performed in 95% of those who did and 79% of those who did not meet guidelines for radiological investigation. 35% of patients were inappropriately imaged and 3% inappropriately not imaged. Spinal computed tomography (CT) imaging was used in 52% of patients, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in 42% and image-guided lumbar spinal interventional procedures in 28%. Discussion Most patients with LBP referred for surgical opinion have diagnostic radiological investigations whether or not it is indicated by clinical guidelines. The more frequent use of spinal CT compared to MRI may be due to idiosyncrasies of the Australian Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) rebate system. The findings of this pilot study provide support for the changes recommended by the 2016 MBS Review Taskforce on LBP that permit GP access to subsidised lumbar MRI, while constraining access to lumbar CT, and provide novel data about spinal imaging and practice in this cohort of patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":16855,"journal":{"name":"Journal of primary health care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of primary health care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1071/HC22127","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PRIMARY HEALTH CARE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Introduction Low back pain (LBP) is common and a significant cause of morbidity. Many patients receive inappropriate imaging for LBP in primary care. Aim To explore the incidence and type of spinal imaging conducted for LBP patients referred from general practice for specialist surgical opinion, and evaluate whether imaging conformed to clinical guidelines. Methods Audit of a sequential cohort (n  = 100) of new LBP patients referred from primary care for specialist opinion at a suburban Australian capital city independent Spinal Centre. Results In the 6 months before referral, 90% (95% CI 83-95%) of patients underwent spinal imaging. Imaging was performed in 95% of those who did and 79% of those who did not meet guidelines for radiological investigation. 35% of patients were inappropriately imaged and 3% inappropriately not imaged. Spinal computed tomography (CT) imaging was used in 52% of patients, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in 42% and image-guided lumbar spinal interventional procedures in 28%. Discussion Most patients with LBP referred for surgical opinion have diagnostic radiological investigations whether or not it is indicated by clinical guidelines. The more frequent use of spinal CT compared to MRI may be due to idiosyncrasies of the Australian Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) rebate system. The findings of this pilot study provide support for the changes recommended by the 2016 MBS Review Taskforce on LBP that permit GP access to subsidised lumbar MRI, while constraining access to lumbar CT, and provide novel data about spinal imaging and practice in this cohort of patients.

腰痛初级保健患者的影像学发病率和类型:一项关于新转诊到澳大利亚脊柱外科专家中心的横断面研究。
引言腰痛(LBP)是一种常见且重要的发病原因。许多患者在初级保健中接受了不适当的LBP成像。目的探讨从全科医学转诊的LBP患者进行脊柱影像学检查的发生率和类型,并评估影像学检查是否符合临床指南。方法对序列队列(n = 100)从初级保健转诊到澳大利亚首都郊区独立脊柱中心接受专家意见的新LBP患者。结果在6 在转诊前几个月,90%(95%CI 83-95%)的患者接受了脊柱影像学检查。95%的符合者和79%的不符合放射学调查指南的人进行了成像。35%的患者不恰当地成像,3%的患者不适当地未成像。52%的患者使用脊柱计算机断层扫描(CT)成像,42%的患者使用磁共振成像(MRI),28%的患者使用图像引导的腰椎介入治疗。讨论大多数接受手术治疗的LBP患者都进行了诊断性放射学检查,无论临床指南是否指示。与MRI相比,脊柱CT的使用频率更高,这可能是由于澳大利亚医疗保险福利计划(MBS)回扣制度的特殊性。这项试点研究的结果为2016年MBS LBP审查工作组建议的改变提供了支持,这些改变允许全科医生获得补贴的腰椎MRI,同时限制获得腰椎CT,并提供了有关该患者队列中脊柱成像和实践的新数据。
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
Journal of primary health care
Journal of primary health care PRIMARY HEALTH CARE-
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
16.70%
发文量
79
审稿时长
28 weeks
×
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