151. I know what the imaging guidelines say, but
- Author
-
Ben Darlow, Gilat L. Grunau, P. O'Sullivan, Kieran O'Sullivan, Bruce B. Forster, and Timothy C. Flynn
- Subjects
medicine.medical_specialty ,Referral ,Spinal mri ,MEDLINE ,Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation ,03 medical and health sciences ,0302 clinical medicine ,X ray computed ,medicine ,Humans ,Orthopedics and Sports Medicine ,030212 general & internal medicine ,medicine.diagnostic_test ,Guideline adherence ,business.industry ,Magnetic resonance imaging ,030229 sport sciences ,General Medicine ,Magnetic Resonance Imaging ,Low back pain ,Physical therapy ,Guideline Adherence ,medicine.symptom ,Tomography, X-Ray Computed ,business ,Low Back Pain ,Limited resources - Abstract
Despite evidence to the contrary, the public, and clinicians, often believe that low back pain (LBP) diagnosis and management are enhanced through the use of imaging such as MRI and CT. In the USA alone, nearly $6 billion is spent on spinal MRI scans annually, stretching limited resources. We have previously discussed1 how imaging rates for LBP may be safely reduced and aligned with guidelines,2 using methods such as clinician decision support to ‘shape the path’.3 Nevertheless, reducing imaging rates for LBP is difficult. There may be additional value in gaining a better understanding of the decision-making processes, and motivations, of referring clinicians. There is considerable variation in imaging referral patterns between clinicians, with variation the greatest for LBP presentations not involving trauma or radiculopathy (the majority of people with LBP). This suggests clinician factors, in addition to system factors, contribute to the variation. Many clinicians are aware of, and broadly agree with, recommended clinical …
- Published
- 2017