There is a noticeable increase in the unnecessary ordering of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) of the knee in older patients. This quality improvement study assessed the frequency of unnecessary pre-consultation knee MRIs and investigated the effect on the outcome of the patients’ consultation with the orthopedic surgeon. 650 medical charts of patients aged 55 years or older referred to an orthopedic clinic with knee complaints were reviewed. Patients arriving with a pre-consultation MRI were identified, and the usefulness of the MRI was evaluated using the appropriateness criteria developed to support this study. Of the 650 patient charts reviewed, 225 patients presented with a pre-consultation MRI, 76% of which were not useful for the orthopedic surgeon. The ordered knee MRI scans were considered not useful because they were requested for confirmed meniscal tear for patients ≥55 years, suspected degenerative disorder and ligament/tendon injury, or for patients with severe osteoarthritis without locking or extension. These MRI scans were done despite the absence of signs of effusion, tenderness, soft tissue swelling, decreased range of motion, or difficulty of weight-bearing, a lack of persistent knee joint pain at the time of assessment, or with no x-ray before ordering MRI. Half of the patients with a pre-consult MRI did not present with plain radiographs of their knee, however, 35% of those still required an x-ray to be ordered at the time of the surgical consult. A logistic regression analysis on post-consult disposition found that patients with pre-consult MRI were less likely to be considered for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) (OR 0.424, CI 0.258–0.698, p = 0.001). Patients assessed by an advanced practice physiotherapist prior to referral for surgical consult were 4.47 more likely to have TKA (CI 2.844–7.039, p< 0.000). Most of the pre-consult knee MRIs were deemed as unnecessary for the orthopedic surgeon’s clinical decision-making. This study highlights the potential benefits of following a comprehensive model of care within the referral process to reduce the unnecessary high orders of pre-consult MRI scans.

An MSK model of care for hip and knee patients integrated with an electronic referral solution (eReferral) has been deployed within four subregions across Ontario. Referrals are sent from primary care offices to a central intake (CI), where the referral forms are reviewed and forwarded, if appropriate, to a rapid access clinic (RAC) where patients are assessed by an advanced practice clinician (APC). The pragmatic design of eReferral allows for a seamless flow of electronic orthopedic referrals from primary care to CI. It also enables CI to process and transcribe faxed referrals into the eReferral system for a smooth flow of data electronically to the RACs. In general, wait time is the time interval between receiving the patient's referral at CI or the surgeon's office until receiving the orthopedic surgeon's first consultation. Wait time is further broken down into wait 1 a and wait 1 b. Wait 1 a is the time between the receipt of the referral at CI until the date of the first initial assessment at the RAC. This study aimed at: a) assessing the processing time of orthopedic referrals at central intakes (CI) to be forwarded to the RAC, b) assessing the wait time (wait 1 a) of orthopedic referrals processed through the eReferral system to receive an initial assessment at the RACs. c) comparing the ability of the RACs to meet the target wait time for assessment (four weeks) by the method of referral (eReferrals vs. fax). d) evaluating patients' satisfaction with the length of time they waited to receive care at the RACs with eReferral. We used Ocean eReferral database to access MSK hip and knee referral data processed through the system. Patients whose referrals were initiated electronically through the system and opted to receive email notification of their referral status had the opportunity to take an online satisfaction survey embedded in the booked appointment notification message. There were 1,723 patients initially referred electronically for hip, and knee pain consults, while 13,780 referrals started as paper-based and transcribed into the system to be forwarded later electronically by CI to a RAC. Higher mean processing time at CI by 21.76 days for paper-based referral was detected as opposed to referrals received electronically (p<0.001). RACs took significantly less time to book appointments for referrals initiated electronically with a shorter average wait 1a of 21.42 days for eReferrals compared to paper-based referrals (p<0.001). RACs timeframe to book an appointment was significantly shorter for eReferrals versus fax referrals. A total of 393 patients completed the patient satisfaction survey with a response

Rational and objective: Requests for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) exams have notably increased in Canada. However, many of these exams may not always be indicated. The Joint Department of Medical Imaging and the eReferral Program have worked collaboratively to embed an integrated clinical decision support (DS) tool within the eReferral process for diagnostic imaging requests. This retrospective chart review aimed to assess the necessity of MRI exams for knee pain patients at the point of referral in relation to the referral method (no DS tools within fax-vs. DS tools within eReferral).Methods: Seven hundred and seventeen medical charts of routine MRI referral requests to an Ontario Hospital for patients with knee complaints were reviewed during the study period. The necessity of the MRI exams was evaluated using the supporting algorithm and knee pathway appropriateness guidelines. MRI exams were considered necessary if requested for symptoms or signs that align with best-practice standards, complemented with sound clinical assessment or history of a radiography scan before ordering an MRI.Results: In general, MRI requests made through eReferral were 13.289 times more likely to be necessary orders than those made through fax. The likelihood of referring patients for a necessary MRI exam was higher for eReferral than fax for the year 2018/2019 (53.0% vs. 26.8%, P < 0.001) and for the year 2019/2020 (58.5% vs. 16.3%, P < 0.001). In addition, the rate of ordering X-ray as the proper initial imaging scan for patients presenting with knee pain has steadily increased by 10% over the year for users of the eReferral platform compared to a decrease of 7% for those using fax.