Effects of mailed dissemination of the Royal College of Radiologists' guidelines on general practitioner referrals for radiography: a time series analysis

L. Matowe, Craig R Ramsay, Fiona Jane Gilbert, Mary Joan MacLeod, Gillian Needham

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

35 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

AIM: To evaluate the effect of postal dissemination of the third edition of the Royal College of Radiologists' (RCR) guidelines on general practitioner referrals for radiography.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: An interrupted time series using monthly data for 34 months before and 14 months after dissemination of the guidelines was employed. Data were abstracted for the period April 1994 to March 1998 from the computerized administrative systems of open access radiological services provided by two teaching hospitals in one region of Scotland. The time series results are contrasted with those obtained by using a simple before and after design.

RESULTS: A total of 117 747 imaging requests from general practice were received in the two departments. There were no significant effects of disseminating the guidelines on the total number of requests, or on requests for individual examinations. If a simple before and after study had been used, then we would have erroneously concluded that significant changes had occurred in referral practice for 11 of the 18 procedures concerned.

CONCLUSION: Mailing of copies of the RCR guidelines had a small effect on general practitioners' use of X-ray investigations of uncertain clinical significance. Additional dissemination and implementation strategies appear necessary to promote the use of guidelines. (C) 2002 The Royal College of Radiologists.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)575-578
Number of pages3
JournalClinical Radiology
Volume57
Issue number7
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2002

Keywords

  • guidelines
  • referrals
  • workload
  • audit
  • RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
  • FEEDBACK

Cite this

Effects of mailed dissemination of the Royal College of Radiologists' guidelines on general practitioner referrals for radiography: a time series analysis. / Matowe, L.; Ramsay, Craig R; Gilbert, Fiona Jane; MacLeod, Mary Joan; Needham, Gillian.

In: Clinical Radiology, Vol. 57, No. 7, 2002, p. 575-578.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{5ea1ceb6c2874935960d7ce667c7d083,
title = "Effects of mailed dissemination of the Royal College of Radiologists' guidelines on general practitioner referrals for radiography: a time series analysis",
abstract = "AIM: To evaluate the effect of postal dissemination of the third edition of the Royal College of Radiologists' (RCR) guidelines on general practitioner referrals for radiography.MATERIALS AND METHODS: An interrupted time series using monthly data for 34 months before and 14 months after dissemination of the guidelines was employed. Data were abstracted for the period April 1994 to March 1998 from the computerized administrative systems of open access radiological services provided by two teaching hospitals in one region of Scotland. The time series results are contrasted with those obtained by using a simple before and after design.RESULTS: A total of 117 747 imaging requests from general practice were received in the two departments. There were no significant effects of disseminating the guidelines on the total number of requests, or on requests for individual examinations. If a simple before and after study had been used, then we would have erroneously concluded that significant changes had occurred in referral practice for 11 of the 18 procedures concerned.CONCLUSION: Mailing of copies of the RCR guidelines had a small effect on general practitioners' use of X-ray investigations of uncertain clinical significance. Additional dissemination and implementation strategies appear necessary to promote the use of guidelines. (C) 2002 The Royal College of Radiologists.",
keywords = "guidelines, referrals, workload, audit, RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL, FEEDBACK",
author = "L. Matowe and Ramsay, {Craig R} and Gilbert, {Fiona Jane} and MacLeod, {Mary Joan} and Gillian Needham",
year = "2002",
doi = "10.1053/crad.2001.0894",
language = "English",
volume = "57",
pages = "575--578",
journal = "Clinical Radiology",
issn = "0009-9260",
publisher = "W.B. Saunders Ltd",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Effects of mailed dissemination of the Royal College of Radiologists' guidelines on general practitioner referrals for radiography: a time series analysis

AU - Matowe, L.

AU - Ramsay, Craig R

AU - Gilbert, Fiona Jane

AU - MacLeod, Mary Joan

AU - Needham, Gillian

PY - 2002

Y1 - 2002

N2 - AIM: To evaluate the effect of postal dissemination of the third edition of the Royal College of Radiologists' (RCR) guidelines on general practitioner referrals for radiography.MATERIALS AND METHODS: An interrupted time series using monthly data for 34 months before and 14 months after dissemination of the guidelines was employed. Data were abstracted for the period April 1994 to March 1998 from the computerized administrative systems of open access radiological services provided by two teaching hospitals in one region of Scotland. The time series results are contrasted with those obtained by using a simple before and after design.RESULTS: A total of 117 747 imaging requests from general practice were received in the two departments. There were no significant effects of disseminating the guidelines on the total number of requests, or on requests for individual examinations. If a simple before and after study had been used, then we would have erroneously concluded that significant changes had occurred in referral practice for 11 of the 18 procedures concerned.CONCLUSION: Mailing of copies of the RCR guidelines had a small effect on general practitioners' use of X-ray investigations of uncertain clinical significance. Additional dissemination and implementation strategies appear necessary to promote the use of guidelines. (C) 2002 The Royal College of Radiologists.

AB - AIM: To evaluate the effect of postal dissemination of the third edition of the Royal College of Radiologists' (RCR) guidelines on general practitioner referrals for radiography.MATERIALS AND METHODS: An interrupted time series using monthly data for 34 months before and 14 months after dissemination of the guidelines was employed. Data were abstracted for the period April 1994 to March 1998 from the computerized administrative systems of open access radiological services provided by two teaching hospitals in one region of Scotland. The time series results are contrasted with those obtained by using a simple before and after design.RESULTS: A total of 117 747 imaging requests from general practice were received in the two departments. There were no significant effects of disseminating the guidelines on the total number of requests, or on requests for individual examinations. If a simple before and after study had been used, then we would have erroneously concluded that significant changes had occurred in referral practice for 11 of the 18 procedures concerned.CONCLUSION: Mailing of copies of the RCR guidelines had a small effect on general practitioners' use of X-ray investigations of uncertain clinical significance. Additional dissemination and implementation strategies appear necessary to promote the use of guidelines. (C) 2002 The Royal College of Radiologists.

KW - guidelines

KW - referrals

KW - workload

KW - audit

KW - RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL

KW - FEEDBACK

U2 - 10.1053/crad.2001.0894

DO - 10.1053/crad.2001.0894

M3 - Article

VL - 57

SP - 575

EP - 578

JO - Clinical Radiology

JF - Clinical Radiology

SN - 0009-9260

IS - 7

ER -