Adherence of Radiological Investigation Requests from Medical Wards, to Royal College of Radiologists’ Guidelines

Background: Radiological investigation requests get rejected by vetting radiologists, if they do not adhere to Royal College of Radiologists (RCR) guidelines and Ionizing Radiation (Medical Exposure) Regulations - IR(ME)R 2017 guidelines. This leads to significant delays for all three parties involved: the requesting clinician, the radiologist who vets the investigation, and the patient whose management is affected. Hence radiological investigation requests, which are the main means of communication between the referring clinician and the radiologist, should be appropriately filled in to facilitate the justification process and to optimize patient management. Aims/purpose: To evaluate the adherence of radiological investigation requests of inpatients from medical wards at University Hospitals of Leicester, to RCR guidelines and identify improvement areas, thereby reducing preventable patient delays. Methods: Data from 500 investigation requests of adult inpatients for common modalities of imaging (CT, X-Ray, and MRI) from medical wards at University Hospitals of Leicester were collected across two audit cycles, omitting any patient-identifiable information, and were analyzed for their completeness and adherence to RCR protocols. Results: Based on the analysis, inadequacies of imaging requests were identified, both in completion and adherence to RCR guidelines. In the initial audit cycle, even though more than 90% of the 250 investigation requests analysed contained clinical history, the name of requesting clinician and the question to be answered, only 64% of the investigation requests contained clinical examination or relevant investigation findings. In comparison to more than 94% of MRI and X-Ray requests, only 68.6% of CT requests adhered to RCR and IR(ME)R 2017 guidelines. In order to raise awareness and educate, the audit findings and recommendations were presented in a local medical teaching session within the hospital, and the same was propagated among medical doctors, through an online flyer. During the re-audit, another 250 radiological investigation requests were evaluated, where 73.3% of the requests included relevant clinical examination and/or investigation results and 76% of the CT requests adhered to iRefer guidelines for indication. Conclusion: Radiological investigation requests get rejected if it does not adhere to RCR guidelines for completeness (1) or indication (in compliance with IR(ME)R 2017)(3). This in turn results in delays in patient management. This could be minimized by increasing awareness about the above guidelines and the need for adhering to the same, thereby making sure all the necessary details are filled in and the investigation being requested is appropriate for the clinical indication. Keywords: Radiology, Audit, Medicine.