Despite increased scrutiny by health-care organizations regarding the utility, accessibility, and costs associated with imaging, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is one of the most powerful diagnostic tools in contemporary clinical medicine and has become critical to many clinical specialties to improve patient care. However, the geographical distribution of these machines, as well as their application in resource-scarce countries such as Jordan, has not been thoroughly researched. Therefore, the purpose of this research is to determine the current situation, geographical distribution, and utilization of MRI services in Jordan. This cross-sectional study was conducted from December 15, 2020 to January 15, 2021, at 167 health facilities in Jordan. Surveys were used to gather information on the current and equity status of MRI numbers, device characteristics, and utilization rate. To measure MRI units per million inhabitants among Jordanian governorates, descriptive analysis was conducted at multiple levels, including in OECD countries, regionally, and nationally. The Lorenz curve and the Gini coefficient, both indices of inequalities in the distribution, were used to determine the distribution of MRI units. By 2020, 373,824 MRI scans had been performed in Jordan on 85 existing MRI units. In 2020, Jordan had less MRI scanners per million population than most of the OECD countries, varying from 14.4 in the governorate of Aqaba to zero in the governorate of Madaba. In all Jordanian governorates, the equity of the MRI distribution remained low and was strongly negatively associated with population density. The Gini coefficient for MRI was 0.30. In Jordan, there is a relatively low inequality in MRI allocation in terms of geographic distribution. Across all Jordanian governorates, MRI distributions were significantly inversely related to population density. The rate of MRI unit utilization varied by governorate. The majority of MRI units were concentrated in Amman, Jordan's capital, where population density is higher and profit opportunity is greater. However, MRI was utilized more frequently in military and university hospitals. In 2020, the number of MRI scanners per million population was lower than in the majority of the OECD countries. Infrastructure and population density are important factors to consider in future planning to ensure equitable distribution of high-tech medical equipment.
Purpose The absence of ionizing radiation in MRI applications does not guarantee absolute safety. Implementing of safety guidelines can ensure high-quality practice in the clinical MRI with the minimum risk. For this purpose, this cross-section quantitative study conducted in Jordan Kingdom aimed to assess current MRI safety guidelines in comparison with those of 2020 Manual on MR Safety of the American College of Radiology (ACR). Patients and Methods A site observation study of 38 MRI units was undertaken in June 2021. A well-structured MRI safety questionnaire was the primary data collection method. Data were subjected to a descriptive statistics content analysis by the SPSS version 20. The results were analyzed to yield comprehensive discussions. Results A total of 38 MRI facilities in participated in this study with the responding rate of 44.7%. Patient screening areas and changing rooms were available in about 29% (11/38) of the MRI facilities. Most facilities (55%, 21/38) conducted verbal screening only whereas 21% implemented both written and verbal screening for their patients and companions in zone II, which was present in a percentage of 29% in the approached facilities. Meanwhile, only 13 (43.2%) of 38 facilities used handheld magnets for physical screening, 25 (65.8%) of MRI units did not use any kind of ferromagnetic metal detection systems. Three (7.9%) participating centers had MR-safe wheelchairs, ventilators, anesthesia machines, and stretchers. Most MRI facilities participating in this study (71%) had emergency preparedness plans for alternative power outages. Despite a relatively low number of participating centers having an emergency exit or code (26.3% and 10.5%, respectively), none of them performed practice drills for such scenarios. Conclusion Investing in new MR-safe equipment requires introducing ferromagnetic detecting systems. More research is needed to establish the degree of MRI professional’s safety-related education.
Breast MRI possesses high sensitivity for detecting breast cancer among the current clinical modalities and is an indispensable imaging practice. Breast MRI comprises diffusion-weighted imaging, ultrafast, and T2 weighted and T1 weighted CE (contrast-enhanced) imaging that may be utilized for improving the characterization of the lesions. This multimodal evaluation of breast lesions enables outstanding discrimination between the malignant and benign and malignant lesions. The expanding indications of breast MRI confirm the far superiority of MRI in preoperative staging, especially in the estimation of tumour size and identifying tumour foci in the contralateral and ipsilateral breast. Recent studies depicted that experts can meritoriously utilize this tool for improving breast cancer surgery despite their existence of no significant long term outcomes. For managing the, directly and indirectly, associated screening cost, abbreviated protocols are found to be more beneficial. Further, in some of the patients who were treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, breast MRI is utilized for documenting response. It is therefore essential to realise that oncological screening must be easily available, cost-effective, and time-consuming. Earlier detection of this short sequence protocol leads to prior and early breast cancer disease in high risky female populations like women with dense breasts, prehistoric evidence, etc. This proper utilization of AP reduces unnecessary mastectomies. Hence, this review focused on the explorative information for strongly suggesting the benefits of AP breast MRI compared to full diagnostic protocol MRI.
Purpose Many international radiology societies, including American College of Radiologists (ACR), have established guidelines for optimum forms and contents of medical imaging reports to ensure high quality and to guarantee the satisfaction of both the referring physician and the patient. Therefore, this study aims to analyze the criteria of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) reports in Jordan according to the standards of the ACR. Design/methodology/approach This cross-sectional study was conducted in early January 2021 for two weeks. An invitation letter was sent to 85 MRI centers of various health-care sectors in Jordan to participate in the study. Each invitee was requested to send at least ten different MRI reports. The study used a questionnaire containing the checklist of the latest edition 2020 of ACR’s practice parameter to communicate the diagnostic imaging results and the demographic information of the participating MRI centers. Seven basic elements were assessed for content-related quality of MRI reports, which are administrative data, patient demographics, clinical history, imaging procedures, clinical symptoms, imaging observations and impressions. Statistical analyses were used to evaluate the data. Findings Forty-one MRI centers participated in the study with 386 different MRI exam reports. The majority (92%) of the reports were computer-generated. Free texted unstructured reports and head-structured reports had an almost equal percentage of around 40%. Exam and radiologist demography as well as exam findings criteria were 100% available in all reports. The percentage of exam conclusion, and exam description and techniques were 2% and 4.9%, respectively (N = 368). There was a positive association between computer-generated reports and the presence of picture archiving and communication systems (PACS)/health information systems r = 0.443. Originality/value Structured and free text unstructured reporting were the common types of MRI exam reports in Jordan. Handwriting exam reporting existed in few MRI centers, particularly in those that had no PACS and radiology information systems.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.