Rationale, aims, and objective: Telemedicine applications, such as a mobile radiography service, provide a new way of organizing healthcare services. In order to provide safe and personalised care for nursing home residents during X-ray examinations, mobile radiography services have been implemented. The objective of this study was to analyse the costs of X-ray examinations and treatments for nursing home residents when comparing hospital-based imaging with a combination of hospital-based imaging and a mobile radiography service in Southeast Norway.Methods: A decision model was developed using the software TreeAge Pro. The model included two alternatives: the mobile radiography service in combination with hospital-based imaging and hospital-based imaging alone. The treatment needed based on the examination results could be given either in the nursing home or at the hospital. Probabilities and costs in the model were derived from previous research, various reports, and hospital data from the Southeast region of Norway.Monte Carlo simulations of 1000 residents were run through the model, and statistical analyses were applied.Results: The analysis showed a mean cost of €2790 per resident for the hospitalbased service alone. For mobile and hospital-based services combined, the mean cost was €1946 per resident, including examinations and the immediate treatment given. This difference in costs was significant (p < 0.001). Conclusion:A mobile radiography service in nursing homes provides a safe, high quality health care service. The result of this study showed there was a 30% costreduction by implementing the mobile radiography service

BackgroundIn order to meet the future challenges posed by ageing populations, new technology, telemedicine and a more personalized healthcare system are needed. Earlier research has shown mobile radiography services to be highly beneficial for nursing home residents in addition to being cost-effective. Despite the benefits, mobile radiography services are uncommon in Europe and Norway. The purpose of this study was to explore success criteria and barriers in the process of implementing mobile radiography services, from the point of view of the hospital and municipal managers.MethodsEleven semi-structured interviews were conducted with managers from five hospitals and six municipalities in Norway where mobile radiography services had been implemented. Core issues in the interview guide were barriers and facilitators in the different phases of implementation. The framework method for thematic analysis was used for analysing the data inductively in a research team.ResultsFive main categories were developed through the success criteria and barriers experienced by the participants: national health policy, regional and municipal policy and conditions, inter-organizational implementation projects, experienced outcome, and professional skills and personal characteristics. The categories were allocated into three higher-order classifications: macro, meso and micro levels. The main barriers experienced by the managers were financial, procedural and structural. In particular, the reimbursement system, lack of management across healthcare levels and the lack of compatible information systems acted as barriers. The main facilitators were external funding, enthusiastic individuals in the organizations and good collaboration between hospitals and municipalities.ConclusionsThe managers experienced financial, structural and procedural barriers. The main success criteria in the process were external funding, and the support and engagement from the individuals in the organizations. This commitment was mainly facilitated by the intuitive appeal of mobile radiography. Changes in healthcare management and in the financial system might facilitate services across healthcare levels. In addition, compatible information systems across healthcare levels are needed in order to facilitate the use of new technology and mobile services.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-3115-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundDemographic changes are leading to an ageing population in Europe, and predict an increase in the number of nursing home residents over the next 30 years. Nursing home residents need specialised healthcare services such as radiology due to both chronic and acute illnesses. Mobile radiography, x-ray examinations performed in the nursing homes, may be a good way of providing services to this population. The aim of this systematic review was to identify the outcomes of mobile radiography services for nursing home residents and society.MethodsA systematic review based on searches in the Medline, Cochrane, PubMed, Embase and Svemed + databases was performed. Titles and abstracts were screened according to a predefined set of inclusion criteria: empirical studies in the geriatric population, and reports of mobile radiography services in a clinical setting. All publications were quality appraised using MMAT or CASP appraisal tools. Data were extracted using a summary table and results were narratively synthesised.ResultsTen publications were included. Three overarching outcomes were identified: 1) reduced number of hospitalisations and outpatient examinations or treatments, 2) reduced number of transfers between nursing homes and hospitals and 3) increased access to x-ray examinations. These outcomes were interlinked with the more specific outcomes for residents and society reported in the literature. For residents there was a reduction in burdensome transfers and waiting time and adequate treatment and care increased. For society, released resources could be used more efficiently, and overall costs were reduced substantially.ConclusionsThis review indicates that mobile radiography services for nursing home residents in the western world are of comparable quality to hospital-based examinations and have clear potential benefits. Mobile radiography reduced transfers to and from hospital, increased the number of examinations carried out and facilitated timely diagnosis and access to treatments. Further research is needed to formally evaluate potential improvements in care quality and cost-effectiveness.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-017-2173-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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.

Introduction: This study aimed to survey radiographers and radiologists' assessment of plain radiographs to identify the imaging clinicians' differences in acceptance of image quality. Method: An online, questionnaire was distributed among radiographers (n ¼ 116) and radiologists (n ¼ 76) in a hospital trust in Norway, including 30 clinical cases (one image and a short referral text) that were divided into 3 categories; keep, could keep and reject, based on European guidelines. When rejecting, the respondents identified the main reason by ticking a list (positioning, collimation, centering, artifact or exposure error). Group differences were explored using 2-tailed chi-squared test. Intersubjectivity was measured using Cohen's kappa for multi-rater sample. Results: In total, 36% of the radiographers (n ¼ 42) and 14% of the radiologists (n ¼ 14) responded to the survey. Total response rate was 30% (56/192). Analysis showed significant difference between radiographers and radiologists in the categories of Reject (c 2 ¼ 6.3, df ¼ 1, p ¼ 0.01), and Could keep (c 2 ¼ 6.3, df ¼ 1, p ¼ 0.01), identifying radiologists as keeping more images compared to radiographers. Agreement among radiographers (Cohen's k: 0,39; 95% CI: 0.30e0.48; p < 0.001) and radiologists (Cohen's k: 0,23; 95% CI: 0.09e0.37; p < 0.001) respectively, is fair. The most common reason for rejecting an image is suboptimal positioning. Suboptimal collimation constituted 15% of the rejected images among radiographers, compared to 5% among radiologists. Centering, artifacts and exposure error showed quite similar rates as reasons for rejection. Conclusion: Radiographers and radiologists seem to agree on the assessment of good quality images, however, radiographers seem more reluctant to accept images of lower quality than radiologists. Implications for practice: Further research on reasons for differences in image quality assessment between radiographers and radiologists is needed. This could enable reduction in reject rates and increase image quality in conventional X-ray examinations.