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

Introduction: With 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.

Methods: Referral 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.

Results: 21.7% 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.

Conclusion: The 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 practice: Findings 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.