An overall rejection rate of 12% indicates a need for optimizing radiographic practice in the department.

Background It is estimated that 20–50% of all radiological examinations are of low value. Many attempts have been made to reduce the use of low-value imaging. However, the comparative effectiveness of interventions to reduce low-value imaging is unclear. Thus, the objective of this systematic review was to provide an overview and evaluate the outcomes of interventions aimed at reducing low-value imaging. Methods An electronic database search was completed in Medline – Ovid, Embase-Ovid, Scopus, and Cochrane Library for citations between 2010 and 2020. The search was built from medical subject headings for Diagnostic imaging/Radiology, Health service misuse or medical overuse, and Health planning. Keywords were used for the concept of reduction and avoidance. Reference lists of included articles were also hand-searched for relevant citations. Only articles written in English, German, Danish, Norwegian, Dutch, and Swedish were included. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used to appraise the quality of the included articles. A narrative synthesis of the final included articles was completed. Results The search identified 15,659 records. After abstract and full-text screening, 95 studies of varying quality were included in the final analysis, containing 45 studies found through hand-searching techniques. Both controlled and uncontrolled before-and-after studies, time series, chart reviews, and cohort studies were included. Most interventions were aimed at referring physicians. Clinical practice guidelines (n = 28) and education (n = 28) were most commonly evaluated interventions, either alone or in combination with other components. Multi-component interventions were often more effective than single-component interventions showing a reduction in the use of low-value imaging in 94 and 74% of the studies, respectively. The most addressed types of imaging were musculoskeletal (n = 26), neurological (n = 23) and vascular (n = 16) imaging. Seventy-seven studies reported reduced low-value imaging, while 3 studies reported an increase. Conclusions Multi-component interventions that include education were often more effective than single-component interventions. The contextual and cultural factors in the health care systems seem to be vital for successful reduction of low-value imaging. Further research should focus on assessing the impact of the context in interventions reducing low-value imaging and how interventions can be adapted to different contexts.

PurposeAcute skin toxicity is experienced by 70%–100% of patients receiving radiation therapy following breast cancer. Most studies focus on skin appearances and treatment of such reactions, not the experience. Increased knowledge about patients’ experience will contribute to provide tailored patient care. Thus, the purpose was to investigate patients’ experiences of acute skin toxicity following radiation therapy for breast cancer.Patients and methodsSemi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted with seven women, 2–3 weeks post-treatment. Five broad areas of inquiry were investigated: 1) experiences from the development of skin reactions; 2) experiences in day-to-day life; 3) coping strategies; 4) experiences of information; and 5) experiences from the aftercare. The interviews were analyzed in line with qualitative content analysis.ResultsThe main theme “Not so bad itself, but it comes on top of everything else” was identified, based upon three categories: 1) unique experience of the skin; 2) it is something about the psychological aspect; and 3) experience of information.ConclusionAcute skin toxicity following breast cancer treatment may affect many dimensions of patients’ lives. Experiences are complex, individual, and not necessarily consistent with visible changes of the skin. A holistic approach is necessary to provide treatment and support according to patients’ individual needs.

Background Inappropriate and wasteful use of health care resources is a common problem, constituting 10–34% of health services spending in the western world. Even though diagnostic imaging is vital for identifying correct diagnoses and administrating the right treatment, low-value imaging—in which the diagnostic test confers little to no clinical benefit—is common and contributes to inappropriate and wasteful use of health care resources. There is a lack of knowledge on the types and extent of low-value imaging. Accordingly, the objective of this study was to identify, characterize, and quantify the extent of low-value diagnostic imaging examinations for adults and children. Methods A scoping review of the published literature was performed. Medline-Ovid, Embase-Ovid, Scopus, and Cochrane Library were searched for studies published from 2010 to September 2020. The search strategy was built from medical subject headings (Mesh) for Diagnostic imaging/Radiology OR Health service misuse/Medical overuse OR Procedures and Techniques Utilization/Facilities and Services Utilization. Articles in English, German, Dutch, Swedish, Danish, or Norwegian were included. Results A total of 39,986 records were identified and, of these, 370 studies were included in the final synthesis. Eighty-four low-value imaging examinations were identified. Imaging of atraumatic pain, routine imaging in minor head injury, trauma, thrombosis, urolithiasis, after thoracic interventions, fracture follow-up and cancer staging/follow-up were the most frequently identified low-value imaging examinations. The proportion of low-value imaging varied between 2 and 100% inappropriate or unnecessary examinations. Conclusions A comprehensive list of identified low-value radiological examinations for both adults and children are presented. Future research should focus on reasons for low-value imaging utilization and interventions to reduce the use of low-value imaging internationally. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO: CRD42020208072.

Background Overuse, underuse, and significant variation in the utilisation of radiological services are well documented in the literature. Several radiological examinations are identified as low-value examinations as they do not lead to a change in diagnosis or course of treatment. Even so, such examinations are frequently performed. Many measures for reducing low-value imaging have been carried out with variable outcomes. While there is little evidence as to why some measures work and others do not, adjusting to the context seems important for success. The objective of this study was to investigate which measures stakeholders consider appropriate for reducing the use of low-value imaging and what it takes to make them work. Methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted among radiographers, radiologists, radiological department managers, hospital clinicians, general practitioners, and health government/authorities’ representatives. The interview guide covered two broad areas: Experience with low-value services, and possible future measures deemed appropriate for reducing low-value services. Data were analysed in line with a qualitative framework analysis. Results The analysis included information from 27 participants. All participants acknowledged that low-value imaging was a problem, but few had very specific suggestions on reducing this in practice. Suggested measures were to stop referrals from being sent, provide support in assessing referrals, or change the healthcare system. Identified facilitators were categorised as management and resources, evidence, and experienced value. In general, appropriate measures should be practical, well-founded, and valuable. Conclusions This study provides insight into various stakeholders’ perceptions of suitable interventions to reduce low-value imaging. While many measures for reducing low-value imaging are available, contextual sensitivity is crucial to make them work.

Background The SARS-COV-2 pandemic provides a natural intervention to assess practical priority setting and internal evaluation of specific health services, such as radiological services. Norway makes an excellent case as it had a very low infection rate and very few cases of COVID-19. Accordingly, the objective of this study is to use the changes in performed outpatient radiological examinations during the first stages of the SARS-COV-2 pandemic to assess the practical evaluation of specific radiological examinations in Norway. Methods Data was collected retrospectively from the Norwegian Health Economics Administration (HELFO) in the years 2015–2020. Data included the number of performed outpatient imaging examinations at public hospitals and private imaging centers in Norway and was divided in to three periods based on the level of restrictions on elective health services. Results were analyzed with descriptive statistics. Results In the first period there was a 45% reduction in outpatient radiology compared to the same time period in 2015–2019 while in period 2 and 3 there was a 25 and 6% reduction respectively. The study identified a list of specific potential low-value radiological examinations. While some of these are covered by the Choosing Wisely campaign, others are not. Conclusion By studying the priority setting practice during the initial phases of the pandemic this study identifies a set of potential low value radiological examinations during the initial phases of the SARS-COV-2 pandemic. These examinations are candidates for closer assessments for health services quality improvement.

No abstract

Background One kind of overutilization of diagnostic imaging is low-value imaging, i.e., imaging that does not lead to altered clinical pathways or improved health outcomes. Despite having well-documented extension and consequences, low-value imaging is still widespread. The objective of this study was to identify the drivers for the use of low-value imaging in the Norwegian healthcare services. Methods We conducted individual, semi-structured interviews among representatives from the health authorities, general practitioners, specialists working in hospitals, radiologists, radiographers, and managers of imaging departments. Data analysis was carried out in line with framework analysis consisting of five steps: Familiarization, indexing, charting, mapping, and interpretation. Results The analysis included 27 participants and resulted in two themes. The stakeholders identified drivers in the healthcare system and in the interaction between radiologists, referrers, and patients. The identified drivers were categorized in sub-themes, such as organization, communication, competence, expectations, defensive medicine, roles and responsibilities, and referral quality and time constraints. The drivers interact with each other and may strengthen the effect of other drivers. Conclusions Several drivers for low-value imaging in Norway were identified at all levels of the healthcare system. The drivers work simultaneously and synergistically. To free resources for high-value imaging, drivers should be targeted by appropriate measures at several levels to reduce low-value imaging.