Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Requesting spinal MRIs effectively from primary care referrals

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

To define if MRI scans can accurately be requested based on information provided in the primary care referral and, therefore, streamline the patient journey.

Summary of background data

The demand for outpatient spinal appointments significantly exceeds our services’ ability to provide efficient, high-quality patient care. Currently, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the spine is requested following first consultation.

Methods

During routine vetting of primary care referral letters, three consultant spinal surgeons recorded how likely they thought each patient would be to have an MRI scan. Following the first consultation with the spinal service, the notes of each patient were reviewed to see if an MRI was requested. We measured the positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), sensitivity and specificity of ordering MRI scans based on primary care referral letters.

Results

149 patients were included [101 females, 48 males, mean age 49 (16–87)]. There were 125 routine, 21 urgent, and 3 ‘urgent-suspected cancer’ referrals. The PPV of ordering MRIs before first consultation was 84%, NPV was 56% with the sensitivity and specificity being 82 and 59%, respectively. Ordering MRIs during initial vetting could shorten the patient journey with potential socioeconomic benefits.

Conclusions

MRI scans can be effectively ordered based on the information provided by the primary care referral letter. Requesting MRI scans early in the patient journey can save considerable time, improve care, and deliver cost savings.

Graphical abstract

These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. (2016) The modern outpatient: a collaborative approach 2017–2020. http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0051/00510930.pdf. Accessed 2 May 2017

  2. Fourney DR, Dettori JR, Hall H et al (2011) A systematic review of clinical pathways for lower back pain and introduction of the Saskatchewan Spine Pathway. Spine 1(36):S164–S171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Kindrachuk DR, Fourney DR (2014) Spine surgery referrals redirected through a multidisciplinary care pathway: effects of nonsurgeon triage including MRI utilization: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 20(1):87–92

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Wilgenbusch CS, Wu AS, Fourney DR (2014) Triage of spine surgery referrals through a multidisciplinary care pathway: a value-based comparison with conventional referral processes. Spine 39(22S):S129–S135

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. McEvoy C, Wiles L, Bernhardsson S et al (2015) Triage for patients with spinal complaints: a systematic review of the literature. Physiother Res Int 22(1). https://doi.org/10.1002/pri.1639

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. (2010) NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde: pathway for the physiotherapy management of low back pain. http://www.generalpracticemedicine.org/Pathway%20Document%202%201%20.pdf. Accessed 2 May 2017

  7. Wood L, Hendrick P, Boszczyk B et al (2016) A review of the surgical conversion rate and independent management of spinal extended scope practitioners in a secondary care setting. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 98(03):187–191

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. You JJ, Bederman SS, Symons S et al (2013) Patterns of care after magnetic resonance imaging of the spine in primary care. Spine 38(1):51–59

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Gough-Palmer AL, Burnett C, Gedroyc WM (2009) Open access to MRI for general practitioners: 12 years’ experience at one institution—a retrospective analysis. Br J Radiol 82(980):687–690

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. (2013) National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Low back pain and sciatica in over 16s. NICE guideline (NG 59). https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng59. Accessed 2 May 2017

  11. de Schepper EI, Koes BW, Veldhuizen EF, Oei EH, Bierma-Zeinstra SM, Luijsterburg PA (2015) Prevalence of spinal pathology in patients presenting for lumbar MRI as referred from general practice. Fam Pract 33(1):51–56

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Remedios D, France B, Alexander M (2017) Making the best value of clinical radiology: iRefer Guidelines. Clin Radiol 72(9):705–707

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. de Schepper EI, Koes BW, Oei EH, Bierma-Zeinstra SM, Luijsterburg PA (2016) The added prognostic value of MRI findings for recovery in patients with low back pain in primary care: a 1-year follow-up cohort study. Eur Spine J 25(4):1234–1241

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. (2015) National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Suspected cancer: recognition and referral. NICE guideline (NG 12). https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng12. Accessed 2 May 2017

  15. Jenkins PJ, Morton A, Anderson G et al (2016) Fracture clinic redesign reduces the cost of outpatient orthopaedic trauma care. Bone Jt Res 5(2):33–36

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. McKirdy A, Imbuldeniya AM (2017) The clinical and cost effectiveness of a virtual fracture clinic service. Bone Jt Res 6(5):259–269

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Kingsbury SR, Dube B, Thomas CM et al (2016) Is a questionnaire and radiograph-based follow-up model for patients with primary hip and knee arthroplasty a viable alternative to traditional regular outpatient follow-up clinic? Bone Jt J 98(2):201–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Bhattacharyya R, Jayaram PR, Holliday R et al (2017) The virtual fracture clinic: reducing unnecessary review of clavicle fractures. Injury 48(3):720–723

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Jamaludin A, Lootus M, Kadir T, Zisserman A, Urban J, Battié MC, Fairbank J, McCall I (2017) Genodisc Consortium. ISSLS PRIZE IN BIOENGINEERING SCIENCE 2017: automation of reading of radiological features from magnetic resonance images (MRIs) of the lumbar spine without human intervention is comparable with an expert radiologist. Eur Spine J 26(5):1374–1383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Berg HE (2017) Will intelligent machine learning revolutionize orthopedic imaging? Acta Orthop 88(6):577

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Spine, Trauma and Orthopaedics, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, 1345 Govan Road, Govan, Glasgow, G51 4TF, UK

    Ignatius Liew, Fraser Dean & Odhrán Murray

  2. Department of Management Science, University of Strathclyde Business School, Glasgow, UK

    Gillian Anderson

Authors
  1. Ignatius Liew
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Fraser Dean
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gillian Anderson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Odhrán Murray
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Odhrán Murray.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

No conflict of interest. No funds were received in support of this work. No relevant financial activities outside the submitted work.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PPTX 145 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Liew, I., Dean, F., Anderson, G. et al. Requesting spinal MRIs effectively from primary care referrals. Eur Spine J 27, 2436–2441 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-018-5578-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-018-5578-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation