Clinical audit in European radiology: current status and recommendations for improvement endorsed by the European Society of Radiology (ESR).

Clinical audit is an important quality improvement activity and has significant benefits for patients in terms of enhanced care, safety, experience and outcomes. Clinical audit in support of radiation protection is mandated within the European Council Basic Safety Standards Directive (BSSD), 2013/59/Euratom. The European Society of Radiology (ESR) has recognised clinical audit as an area of particular importance in the delivery of safe and effective health care. The ESR, alongside other European organisations and professional bodies, has developed a range of clinical audit-related initiatives to support European radiology departments in developing a clinical audit infrastructure and fulfilling their legal obligations. However, work by the European Commission, the ESR and other agencies has demonstrated a persisting variability in clinical audit uptake and implementation across Europe and a lack of awareness of the BSSD clinical audit requirements. In recognition of these findings, the European Commission supported the QuADRANT project, led by the ESR and in partnership with ESTRO (European Association of Radiotherapy and Oncology) and EANM (European Association of Nuclear Medicine). QuADRANT was a 30-month project which completed in Summer 2022, aiming to provide an overview of the status of European clinical audit and identifying barriers and challenges to clinical audit uptake and implementation. This paper summarises the current position of European radiological clinical audit and considers the barriers and challenges that exist. Reference is made to the QuADRANT project, and a range of potential solutions are suggested to enhance radiological clinical audit across Europe.

Justification of CT practices across Europe: results of a survey of national competent authorities and radiology societies.

OBJECTIVES: Published literature on justification of computed tomography (CT) examinations in Europe is sparse but demonstrates consistent sub-optimal application. As part of the EU initiated CT justification project, this work set out to capture CT justification practices across Europe. METHODS: An electronic questionnaire consisting of mostly closed multiple-choice questions was distributed to national competent authorities and to presidents of European radiology societies in EU member states as well as Iceland, Norway, Switzerland, and the UK (n = 31). RESULTS: Fifty-one results were received from 30 European countries. Just 47% (n = 24) stated that advance justification of individual CT examinations is performed by a medical practitioner. Radiologists alone mostly (n = 27, 53%) perform daily justification of CT referrals although this is a shared responsibility in many countries. Imaging referral guidelines are widely available although just 13% (n = 6) consider them in daily use. Four countries (Cyprus, Ireland, Sweden, UK) reported having them embedded within clinical decision support systems. Justification of new practices with CT is mostly regulated (77%) although three countries (Belgium, Iceland and Portugal) reported not having any national system in place for generic justification. Health screening with CT was reported by seven countries as part of approved screening programmes and by eight countries outside. When performed, CT justification audits were reported to improve CT justification rates. CONCLUSIONS: CT justification practices vary across Europe with less than 50% using advance justification and a minority having clinical decision support systems in place. CT for health screening purposes is not currently widely used in Europe.

National audit on the appropriateness of CT and MRI examinations in Luxembourg.

OBJECTIVES: In Luxembourg, the frequency of CT and MRI examinations per inhabitant is among the highest in Europe. A national audit was conducted to evaluate the appropriateness of CT and MRI examinations according to the national referral guidelines for medical imaging. METHODS: Three hundred and eighty-eight CT and 330 MRI requests corresponding to already performed examinations were provided by all radiology departments in Luxembourg. Four external radiologists evaluated the clinical elements for justification present in each request. They consensually assessed the appropriateness of each requested examination with regard to the national referral guidelines and their clinical experience. RESULTS: The appropriateness rate (AR) was higher for MRI requests than for CT requests (79% vs. 61%; p < 0.001). AR was higher for requests referred by medical specialists rather than by general practitioners, both for CT requests (70% vs. 37%; p < 0.001) and MRI requests (83% vs. 64%; p = 0.002). For CT, AR was higher when the requests concerned paediatric rather than adult patients (82% vs. 58%; p < 0.001), when the radiology departments were equipped with both CT and MRI units rather than with only CT units (65% vs. 47%, p = 0.004) and when the requests concerned head-neck (79%), chest (77%) and chest-abdominal-pelvic (81%) areas rather than spinal (28%), extremity (51%) and abdominal-pelvic (63%) areas (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The appropriateness of CT and MRI in Luxembourg is not satisfactory and collective efforts to improve should be continued. The focus should be on general practitioners and on spinal CT examinations.