Table 2 Key outcomes from previous CT justification audits
Country | Key outcomes/results from CT appropriateness audits |
|---|---|
Estonia | Follow-up audit showed significantly reduced CT numbers in the specific cohort (paediatrics) |
Finland | The number of CT scans decreased significantly after the interventions and the level remained unchanged during the follow-up. Appropriateness improved significantly in CT scans already from 2005 to 2007 |
Luxembourg | CT appropriateness not satisfactory and collective efforts should be continued. The focus should be on general practitioners and on spinal CT examinations |
Malta | Most audits showed poor adherence to guidelines in referral patterns |
Norway | Large geographic variation in the use of CT and MR. Many examinations are already performed (mainly other places). CT is used when MR is more appropriate (due to availability and waiting lists) |
Sweden | Generally high quality of the referrals. Radiologists often do not have the mandate to change the chosen modality without first talking to the referrer. The radiologists do not have direct contact routes with the referrers in primary care. The proportion of rejected referrals differs greatly between the X-ray clinics (from 0% to just over 8%). Formalised education in justification of medical exposures occurs in principle only in connection with Specialist Training programs for medical doctors and dentists |