Direct Access and Skill Mix Can Reduce Telephone Interruptions and Imaging Wait Times: Improving Radiology Service Effectiveness,Safety and Sustainability

Unnecessary telephone calls to reporting radiologists impede organizations’ workflow and may be associated with a higher chance of errors in reports. We conducted a prospective study in two cycles, which identified vetting plain CT heads as the most common reason for these calls and vetting CT urinary tracts (KUB) was also frequent. Clear vetting and protocolling guidelines exist for both of these scans, which do not routinely require discussion with a radiologist. Therefore, our approach was to create new flow diagrams to allow radiographers to directly accept routine requests for plain CT head and CT KUB scans in- and out-of-hours. After this intervention, incoming calls to radiology for vetting CT heads decreased by 30% and for vetting CT KUBs by 100%. The average wait time between CT head request and scan completion was reduced by 40%. The number of CT head and CT KUB scans performed remained stable. In future, maximizing the benefit of direct access in-patient imaging pathways will rely on effective and sustained communication of the protocols to the junior clinical staff rotating through the organization, as they were responsible for requesting the vast majority of tests.     

An investigation of lumbar spine magnetic resonance referrals in two Irish university teaching centres: Radiology clinical judgement versus iRefer guideline compliance

IntroductionWith the annual increase in medical imaging demand, the appropriateness of the lumbar spine magnetic resonance imaging LSMRI referrals is worldwide gaining attention. This study aims to determine the appropriateness of LSMRI referrals and compare radiology clinical decisions to iRefer compliance based solely on referral text content.MethodsReferral text was extracted from 1021 LSMRI referrals. Two review panels were recruited: three expert radiologists and three MRI radiographers. Radiologists classified cases as indicated or not indicated for scanning based on their clinical judgement. The radiographers classified based solely on iRefer guidelines. Majority voting for each case was applied to both review panels and reviewer agreement was tested using Kappa analysis. Logistic regression models were developed to identify medical disciplines associated with high rates of indicated referrals.Results21.7% and 11.9% of the cases were found not indicated for MRI for radiologists and radiographers, respectively. Radiology review identified 18% of the GPs referrals as not indicated and 17% in the radiographers’ review. Panel agreement was fair: Kappa values of 0.23 and0.26 for the radiologists and radiographers respectively. Neurosurgery was associated with the highest rate of indicated referrals across both review panels: oncology referrals raised the highest number of open comments.ConclusionThe study identified a lower number of not indicated referrals compared to previous research. Findings indicate the importance of both guidelines compliance and clinical judgement to optimise practice.Implications for practiceFindings in this study found that even when strict instructions were given to the MR radiographers to vet referrals using the iRefer guidelines, ambiguity within the guidelines resulted in variations in decision-making. This suggests that detailed protocols are required to support radiographers in the vetting process to ensure a standardised approach.     

COVID-19 in the radiology department: What radiographers need to know

ObjectivesThe aim is to review current literature related to the diagnosis, management, and follow-up of suspected and confirmed Covid-19 cases.Key findingsMedical Imaging plays an important auxiliary role in the diagnosis of Covid-19 patients, mainly those most seriously affected. Practice differs widely among different countries, mainly due to the variability of access to resources (viral testing and imaging equipment, specialised staff, protective equipment). It has been now well-documented that chest radiographs should be the first-line imaging tool and chest CT should only be reserved for critically ill patients, or when chest radiograph and clinical presentation may be inconclusive.ConclusionAs radiographers work on the frontline, they should be aware of the potential risks associated with Covid-19 and engage in optimal strategies to reduce these. Their role in vetting, conducting and often reporting the imaging examinations is vital, as well as their contribution in patient safety and care. Medical Imaging should be limited to critically ill patients, and where it may have an impact on the patient management plan.Implications for practiceAt the time of publication, this review offers the most up-to-date recommendations for clinical practitioners in radiology departments, including radiographers. Radiography practice has to significantly adjust to these new requirements to support optimal and safe imaging practices for the diagnosis of Covid-19. The adoption of low dose CT, rigorous infection control protocols and optimal use of personal protective equipment may reduce the potential risks of radiation exposure and infection, respectively, within Radiology departments.     

Vetting requests for body computed tomography

The aim of this study was to assess the process and outcome of hospitalised patients (inpatients) for whom whole-body CT was requested but not performed. For 6 months the reasons why CT was not performed were recorded, together with relevant discussions with clinicians. Subsequent referrals for alternative investigations were noted. The eventual outcome of the patients was monitored via the patients' records. Eighty-three (8 %) of 1001 inpatient requests were identified for which body CT was not performed after an electronically generated request. Fifty-five requests were not accepted by the radiology department during the vetting process for a variety of reasons (often more than one): criteria used for rejection often overlapped and included referrals outside national guidelines (n = 20), better alternative investigations (n = 29), time constraints (n = 19), over-zealous requests (n = 17) and clinicians' erroneous interpretation of preceding imaging investigations (n = 9). Sixteen CT exams were cancelled by a clinician. An additional 12 exams were not performed for miscellaneous non-medical reasons. In no case could a patient's death be ascribed to CT not being performed. Most (981 of 1001, 98 %) CT requests comply with current guidelines, disproving a perception that many radiological referrals are inappropriate. In our health care system radiologists have to turn down some appropriate CT referrals due to a lack of CT capacity. Although lack of CT contributed to delay in diagnosis, no patient died as a direct result of not having CT. Received: 15 June 1999; Revised: 4 October 1999; Accepted: 5 October 1999     

Detection of incidental adrenal nodules on computed tomography by radiographers

IntroductionThis research investigated whether radiographers’ age, qualifications, shift rotations and years of post-qualification experience as a radiographer affect the detection rate of incidental adrenal nodules, also known as adrenal incidentalomas in Malta. Additionally, local statistics of adrenal incidentaloma findings were evaluated.MethodsThis research consisted of two phases and employed a non-experimental, cross-sectional quantitative approach. Phase 1 comprised of a self-designed data collection sheet to retrospectively determine the occurrence of recalled computed tomography (CT) examinations resulting from an adrenal incidentaloma finding during a six-month period between July 2020 and December 2020. In phase 2, a self-designed questionnaire with anonymised CT scan images (n = 30) displayed on ViewDex (Viewer for Digital Evaluation of X-ray images) was prospectively completed by CT radiographers (n = 23) to identify adrenal incidentalomas on the images.ResultsIn phase 1, adrenal incidentalomas were present in 1.4% of contrast-enhanced CT (CECT) examinations (n = 12139), out of which, 79.8% were not acknowledged by the radiographers on the initial scans and patients had to be recalled for a dedicated adrenal CT scan. In phase 2, a statistically significant (p < 0.05) relationship was determined between the radiographers’ qualifications, shift rotations and years of post-qualification experience as a radiographer, with their detection rate of adrenal incidentalomas.ConclusionFindings suggest that radiographers’ qualifications, shift rotations and years of post-qualification experience were found to be statistically significant factors affecting their detection rate of adrenal incidentalomas. These could have contributed to one of the reasons for recalling patients, which in turn results in an added burden to both the patient and the Radiology Department.Implications for practiceDetection of adrenal incidentalomas by radiographers has a direct impact on clinical practice. If identified during the initial CT examination and a further delay scan is performed, this will benefit patients by reducing the risks of additional radiation and potential risks from contrast media administration; prompt diagnosis and treatment. While the Radiology Department benefits in terms of cost effectiveness, work load and appointment scheduling.     

Appropriateness of Computed Tomography and Ultrasound for Abdominal Complaints in the Emergency Department

ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the appropriateness of ultrasound (US) and computed tomography (CT) examinations ordered in the emergency department (ED) for abdominal complaints.Materials and MethodsWe reviewed 154 CTs and 154 US orders for appropriateness using evidence-based recommendations by the American College of Radiology. The sample was powered to show a prevalence of inappropriate orders of 25% with a margin of error of 7.5%. Findings in the final reports were compared to the initial clinical diagnosis classified in 4 categories: normal, compatible with initial diagnosis, alternative diagnosis, and inconclusive. We also evaluated the frequency in which a second imaging modality was ordered on the same visit.ResultsA total of 135 CT and 143 US examinations had complete clinical information to allow evaluation of order appropriateness. The rate of inappropriate orders was 36.3% for CT and 84.4% for US. The final report of appropriate orders was significantly more likely to demonstrate findings compatible with the initial diagnosis for both CT (76.7% vs 20.4%, P < 0.0001) and US (38.9% vs 14.4%, P = 0.0093). Inappropriately ordered CT scans were more likely to show no abnormalities (46.9 vs 16.3%, P = 0.0001). An additional imaging order with a secondary modality was requested in 20% of the inappropriate US orders, and 8.2% of the inappropriate CT orders.ConclusionThe prevalence of inappropriate examinations in the ED was 36.3% for CT and 84.4% for US. Appropriately ordered exams were more likely to yield imaging findings compatible with the initial diagnosis for both modalities.     

Agreement in the reporting of General Practitioner requested musculoskeletal radiographs: Reporting radiographers and consultant radiologists compared with an index radiologist

IntroductionThis study assessed the inter-observer agreement of reporting radiographers and consultant radiologists compared with an index radiologist when reporting General Practitioner (GP) requested musculoskeletal radiographs. The potential effect of discordant reports on patient management and outcome was also examined.MethodsThree reporting radiographers, three consultant radiologists and an index radiologist reported on a retrospective randomised sample of 219 GP requested musculoskeletal radiographs, in conditions simulating clinical practice. A speciality doctor in radiology compared the observers’ reports with the index radiologist report for agreement and assessed whether any discordance between reports was clinically important.ResultsOverall agreement with the index radiologist was 47.0% (95% CI, 40.5–53.6) and 51.6% (95% CI, 45.0–58.1) for the consultant radiologists and reporting radiographers, respectively. The results for the appendicular and axial skeleton were 48.6% (95% CI, 41.3–55.9) and 40.9% (95% CI, 27.7–55.6) for the radiologists, and 52.6% (95% CI, 45.2–59.8) and 47.7% (95% CI, 33.8–62.1) for the radiographers, respectively. The difference in overall observer agreement between the two professional groups with the index radiologist was not statistically significant (p = 0.34). Discordance with the index radiologist's reports was judged to be clinically important in less than 10% of the observer's reports.ConclusionReporting radiographers and consultant radiologists demonstrate similar levels of concordance with an index radiologist when reporting GP requested musculoskeletal radiographs.Implications for practiceThese findings contribute to the wider evidence base that selected radiographers with appropriate postgraduate education and training are proficient to report on musculoskeletal radiographs, irrespective of referral source.     

Development of lumbar spine MRI referrals vetting models using machine learning and deep learning algorithms: Comparison models vs healthcare professionals

IntroductionReferrals vetting is a necessary daily task to ensure the appropriateness of radiology referrals. Vetting requires extensive clinical knowledge and may challenge those responsible. This study aims to develop AI models to automate the vetting process and to compare their performance with healthcare professionals.Methods1020 lumbar spine MRI referrals were collected retrospectively from two Irish hospitals. Three expert MRI radiographers classified the referrals into indicated or not indicated for scanning based on iRefer guidelines. The reference label for each referral was assigned based on the majority voting. The corpus was divided into two datasets, one for the models' development with 920 referrals, and one included 100 referrals used as a held-out for the final comparison of the AI models versus national and international MRI radiographers. Three traditional models were developed: SVM, LR, RF, and two deep neural models, including CNN and Bi-LSTM. For the traditional models, four vectorisation techniques applied: BoW, bigrams, trigrams, and TF-IDF. A textual data augmentation technique was applied to investigate the influence of data augmentation on the models' performances.ResultsRF with BoW achieved the highest AUC reaching 0.99. CNN model outperformed Bi-LSTM with AUC = 0.98. With the augmented dataset, the performance significantly improved with an increase in F1 scores ranging from 1% to 7%. All models outperformed the national and international radiographers when compared on the hold-out dataset.ConclusionThe models assigned the referrals' appropriateness with higher accuracies than the national and international radiographers. Applying data augmentation significantly improved the models' performances.Implications for practiceThe outcomes suggest that the use of AI for checking referrals' eligibility could serve as a supporting tool to improve the referrals' management in radiology departments.     

An audit of clinical practice,referral patterns,and appropriateness of clinical indications for brain MRI examinations: A single-centre study in Ghana

IntroductionThe aim of this study was to investigate current brain MRI practice, pattern of brain MRI requests, and their appropriateness using the American College of Radiology (ACR) Appropriateness Criteria.Material and methodsWe used direct observation and questionnaires to obtain data concerning routine brain MRI practice. We then retrospectively analyzed (i) demographic characteristics, (ii) clinical history, and (iii) appropriateness of brain MRI requests against published criteria.ResultsAll patients were administered the screening questionnaire; however, no reviews were undertaken directly with patients, and no signature of the radiographer was recorded. Apart from routine brain protocol, there were dedicated protocols for epilepsy and stroke. Brain MRI images from 161 patients (85 Males; 76 Females) were analyzed. The age group with most brain MRI requests were from 26 to 45 year olds. The commonest four clinical indications for imaging were brain tumour, headache, seizure, and stroke. Using the ACR Appropriateness Criteria, almost 43% of the brain MRI scans analyzed were found to be “usually appropriate”, 38% were “maybe appropriate” and 19% were categorized as “usually not appropriate”.ConclusionThere was knowledge gap with regards to MRI safety in local practice, thus there is the utmost need for MRI safety training. Data on the commonest indications for performing brain MRI in this study should be used to inform local neuroradiological practice. Dedicated stroke and epilepsy MRI protocols require additional sequences i.e. MRA and 3D T1 volume acquisition, respectively. The ACR Appropriateness Criteria is recommended for use by the referring practitioners to improve appropriateness of brain MRI requests.     

The radiographers' role in information giving prior to consent for computed tomography scans: A cross-sectional survey

PurposeComputed tomography (CT) use has increased in recent years with concerns regarding radiation risk. Informed consent requires that patients are informed of risks and benefits; however, it is known that radiation risk communication occurs infrequently between referrers and patients. This research aimed to explore the role CT radiographers play in giving information to patients prior to CT; specifically, whether they can give appropriate and accurate information to facilitate informed decisions.ResultsAn on-line cross-sectional survey of UK-based CT radiographers returned 78 completed questionnaires. Participants predominantly saw their role as giving procedural information to reassure the patient. Only 23.1% stated that they discussed the risks of radiation at least sometimes; iodinated contrast risks were discussed more frequently (44.9% always, 28.2% sometimes). Participants felt referrers should take a greater role in discussing CT risk/benefit with patients. Although 92% of radiographers felt confident in giving CT information, when asked to respond to a patient regarding the radiation dose that would be received during a CT abdomen/pelvis scan, 45% would not give a dose or equivalence and only 23% could give accurate dose estimates, with 28% grossly underestimating the dose.ConclusionsThere is variation in practice for information giving and consent procedure in CT. Radiation information communication is infrequent between radiographers in this study and their patients, unless the patient specifically asks about the risks. Relatively few radiographers who completed the survey could give an accurate estimation of radiation doses in CT.     

The impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the mental health and work morale of radiographers within a conventional X-ray department

IntroductionThere is a plethora of literature that has described the negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the mental health of healthcare staff worldwide. Our aim was to investigate the physical and mental demands of mobile x-ray imaging on radiographers during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, within a local NHS Trust.MethodsA total of 16 participants from 1 NHS Trust took part within this study. Both quantitative and qualitative data was obtained through an online survey. Statistical data was obtained via the Trust Radiology Information System (RIS). Data was gathered for the thirteen weeks from 23rd March to 21st June 2020 (the first wave); direct comparison was made to the same period in 2019.ResultsThree key themes emerged from the data. These include mental health challenges/work morale in Radiology, demand of mobile imaging and departmental and Trust-wide mental health support. Results indicate a high demand in mobile imaging which has made a significant difference in the working life of some radiographers.ConclusionThe COVID-19 pandemic has significantly affected the mental health of a proportion of radiographers at this Trust. Results indicate high workload and demand in mobile imaging has made a significant difference to the working life of radiographers, specifically the ones who were relatively newly qualified.Implications for practiceTwo key interventions are proposed from this study. The first one is to provide and promote mental health support within radiology departments. The second is to encourage dual working on mobile x-ray examinations to help manage the emotional and physical burden.     

Impact of Radiologist-Driven Change-Order Requests on Outpatient CT and MRI Examinations

PurposeTo assess impact of electronic medical record–embedded radiologist-driven change-order request on outpatient CT and MRI examinations.MethodsOutpatient CT and MRI requests where an order change was requested by the protocoling radiologist in our tertiary care center, from April 11, 2017, to January 3, 2018, were analyzed. Percentage and categorization of requested order change, provider acceptance of requested change, patient and provider demographics, estimated radiation exposure reduction, and cost were analyzed. P < .05 was used for statistical significance.ResultsIn 79,310 outpatient studies in which radiologists determined protocol, change-order requests were higher for MRI (5.2%, 1,283 of 24,553) compared with CT (2.9%, 1,585 of 54,757; P < .001). Provider approval of requested change was equivalent for CT (82%, 1,299 of 1,585) and MRI (82%, 1,052 of 1,283). Change requests driven by improper contrast media utilization were most common and different between CT (76%, 992 of 1,299) and MRI (65%, 688 of 1,052; P < .001). Changing without and with intravenous contrast orders to with contrast only was most common for CT (39%, 505 of 1,299) and with and without intravenous contrast to without contrast only was most common for MRI (26%, 274 of 1,052; P < .001). Of approved changes in CT, 51% (661 of 1,299) resulted in lower radiation exposure. Approved changes frequently resulted in less costly examinations (CT 67% [799 of 1,198], MRI 48% [411 of 863]).ConclusionOutpatient CT and MRI orders are deemed incorrect in 2.9% to 5% of cases. Radiologist-driven change-order request for CT and MRI are well accepted by ordering providers and decrease radiation exposure associated with imaging.     

An assessment of Sri Lankan radiographer's knowledge and awareness of radiation protection and imaging parameters related to patient dose and image quality in computed tomography (CT)

IntroductionAs computed tomography (CT) examinations have considerably risen, safe operation is essential to reduce the patients’ dose. The main objective of this study was to evaluate the level of knowledge and awareness regarding the CT exposure parameters and radiation protection in CT imaging among Sri Lankan radiographers.MethodsAn online survey-based study was devised and distributed among the Sri Lankan CT radiographers working in 63 CT units. Questions were divided into three subsections that collected data on the participants’ demographic features, knowledge of the radiation protection, and imaging parameters.ResultsEighty-eight radiographers from 32 CT units (out of 63 CT units) distributed across 11 districts (out of 27 districts) participated in this survey.The percentages of correct responses for the questions related to radiation protection, imaging parameters, noise, Diagnostic Reference Level (DRL), and CT dosimetric parameters were 71%, 79%, 87%, 50%, and 66%, respectively. Although the years of experience did not influence any of above aspects, the level of education significantly impacted the knowledge about radiation protection, exposure parameters, and noise.ConclusionThe radiographer's knowledge of radiation protection and most imaging parameters associated with patient safety and image quality is satisfactory. However, findings also show that participants should fill the knowledge gap in radiation-related risks, CT exposure parameters, dosimetric parameters, and DRL.Implications for practiceThe study suggests the necessity of initiating continuous education programs for radiographers in line with national radiation protection legislation requirements that can be linked with code of practice.     

Radiographers' experiences and perspectives of forensic imaging in Australia: A qualitative study

IntroductionForensic imaging plays a pivotal role regarding medico-legal issues by investigating the cause(s) of injuries to living or deceased individuals. There is currently a gap in the literature on forensic imaging due to limited national and international guidelines, protocols and scope of duties and responsibilities of radiographers undertaking forensic imaging. Thus, this study aimed to investigate the gap by exploring the experiences and perspectives of radiographers on forensic imaging in Australia.MethodsA qualitative approach collected data from fifteen purposively sampled qualified Australian radiographers through individual in-depth interviews. The verbatim transcribed data were thematically analysed.ResultsTwo themes were identified: 1) Radiographers' experiences of forensic imaging; 2) Radiographers' perceptions of forensic imaging within the job scope of a qualified radiographer.ConclusionsParticipants' experiences of forensic imaging ranged from anxiety to a positive experience, and others posed ethical and situational dilemmas heightened by the lack of dedicated forensic imaging protocols. While some radiographers expressed that every radiographer should conduct forensic imaging, others felt it was not mandatory.Implications for practiceRadiographers' shared subjective experiences, thoughts and feelings provided insight into forensic imaging and the need for more significant support from educational and governing bodies.     

Appropriateness of out-of-hours CT head scans

This study was conducted to evaluate the appropriateness of the out-of-hours computed tomography (CT) head scans (scans performed outside normal working hours) in a large district general hospital in the United Kingdom. CT scan request forms and CT reports of adult patients were reviewed who had their CT head scans done between 1700 and 0900 h the next day and all weekend and national holidays in the study period of 4 months. Information regarding change in the patient management resulting from CT scan was extracted from review of patients’ case notes. An urgent CT head scan request was deemed appropriate if it led to an immediate change in a patient’s management. Appropriateness of the requests according to the various guidelines was also evaluated. One hundred and twenty-one patients were included in the study. Majority (70%) of the scans were requested by the emergency department. Eighty-one (66%) scans were both requested and performed between 1700 and 2200 h. Immediate change in management of 80% patients occurred. In 20 (17%), the change in management occurred only after 0900 h the next day and in 4 (3%), management did not change at all. Common scenarios involving change in patient’s management included intracranial bleed requiring urgent neurosurgical intervention and hemorrhagic stroke being ruled out. Out-of-hours CT head scans also facilitated early discharge of the patients with head injuries and headache from the hospital. This retrospective study has found that a high proportion of out-of-hours CT head scans were appropriate and led to change in the patient’s immediate medical care. An Editor’s comment on this paper is available at and a reply to the comment is available at .     

Are English CT departments and radiographers prepared for the morbidly obese patient?

IntroductionMorbid obesity is increasing in England, as is the use of CT scanning. All CT scanners have weight and body width limits. It is imperative that the radiographer performing the scan is aware of these limits, particularly in an emergency. This study aim was to determine whether radiographers are aware of their scanner limits, where they may be able to send a patient who exceeds these limits and whether a formal protocol exists. The secondary aim of the study was to determine capacities of scanners in acute trusts throughout England.MethodsCT radiographers from 86 English Hospital Trusts with Emergency Departments were contacted and asked questions regarding their CT scanners and their practice of CT scanning morbidly obese patients.Results21% of CT radiographers did not know the maximum width capacity of their scanner. Only 24% knew where a nearby larger capacity scanner was located and only 3% had a formal protocol for scanning obese patients. Weight capacities ranged from 147 to 305 kg. Width capacities ranged from 55 to 100 cm. 70% had weight capacity 226 kg or less and 70% had size capacity of 78 cm or less.ConclusionPatients over 226 kg or 78 cm may not be accommodated in most (70%) trusts in England. Lack of knowledge of scanner capacities and alternative scanners for morbidly obese patients could have consequences for these patients, particularly in an emergency. The authors advise that all acute trusts have a protocol regarding CT scanning morbidly obese to prevent delays in accessing imaging.     

Quality use of diagnostic imaging in trauma,and the impact on emergency medical practice—a retrospective clinical audit

Purpose

The current study aimed to evaluate the appropriateness of the decisions made to order diagnostic imaging for emergency trauma patients.

Methods

A retrospective audit of 642 clinical decisions for 370 non-consecutive trauma cases was conducted at a level 1 adult trauma centre. Radiographs and computed tomography investigations were compared for compliance with the American College of Radiology/European Society of Radiology (ACR/ESR) imaging guidelines. The non-compliant imaging orders were evaluated for the following medical officer ranks: Junior Medical Officer (JMO), Senior Resident Medical Officer (SRMO), Emergency Medicine Registrar (EMR) and Consultants/Career Medical Officer (CMO). The time of imaging order (day/evening or night shift), whether the imaging led to conservative or surgical patient management, and whether the imaging order decisions led to a change in the clinical management of the patient were also considered.

Results

Non-compliance with the ACR/ESR guidelines was low. At least half of non-compliant decisions made by each level of medical officer resulted in a change in patient management. In total, 11 (65%), 25 (53%), 12 (63%) and 11 (52%) of non-compliant imaging orders placed by JMOs, SRMOs, EMRs and Consultants, respectively, resulted in change of patient management. JMOs and SRMOs ordered a significantly higher proportion of non-compliant imaging studies for conservatively managed patients in comparison to surgically managed patients.

Conclusion

This study highlighted that most non-compliant imaging orders benefited the patient.

     

Evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging regulatory methods in the Israeli Air Force

BACKGROUND: The use of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging (MRI) among many medical professions is growing. Many health care systems have formed control mechanisms to ensure proper utilization of MRI. This western world trend is also valid in the Israeli Air Force (IAF). At the time of the study, two methods existed for consideration of MR requests in the IAF: (1) consideration by a primary reviewer, no clinical guidelines (applied to all MR examination requests, knee MR excluded). (2) Consideration by a primary reviewer according to basic clinical guidelines established by the Israeli Defense Forces medical section and by communication with an orthopedic specialist (applied to knee MR requests). Both methods did not include consultation with established criteria (such as American College of Radiology (ACR) appropriateness criteria). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the appropriateness of the current regulatory methods of MRI utilization in the IAF by comparing approval/rejection decisions to established ACR criteria. METHODS: The study is a retrospective analysis of written records of air force personnel, for whom MRI was requested by a specialist. We gathered information regarding the clinical problem and the final decision concerning approval or rejection of the MRI request. We then consulted with the ACR appropriateness criteria. In case a matching ACR clinical variant was found, an appropriateness value was assigned to the request. Otherwise, the request was noted as "ACR irrelevant". We predetermined to label all studies with an ACR value of 1 to 3 as inappropriate, 4 to 6 as "gray zone," and 7 to 9 as appropriate. We then compared the ACR-based decision to the original outcome of the request. RESULTS: The overall approval rate for MRI requests evaluated by a primary reviewer only was 96%. The overall approval rate for MRI requests evaluated by a primary reviewer, basic clinical guidelines, and specialist consultation was 51%. Among the four most prevalent MR requests types (brain, knee, spine, and shoulder), requests in the 7 to 9 scale (appropriate requests) accounted for 52%. Regarding appropriate requests, there was a 100% approval rate by a primary reviewer only compared with 17% for requests considered by a primary reviewer, basic guidelines, and specialist consultation (83% of appropriate requests were rejected by this method). Requests in the 1 to 3 scale (inappropriate requests) accounted for 3% of all requests. In this group, there was a 100% approval rate by both methods of consideration. Requests in the 4 to 6 scale (gray zone requests) also accounted for 3% of the total and requests which could not be assigned an ACR appropriateness value (ACR-irrelevant requests) accounted for 42% of total requests. The rate of approval of these requests by a primary reviewer only and by a primary reviewer, guidelines, and consultant was 97% and 83%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Both MR approval mechanisms that were applied in the IAF have not shown a strong correlation with ACR appropriateness criteria, with significant rates of both overuse and underuse of MRI. The high rate of requests that could not be assigned an ACR appropriateness value may indicate a need to broaden the appropriateness criteria coverage of clinical conditions and variants.