Clinical Radiology
Volume 64, Issue 3 , Pages 284-290, March 2009

National audit of provision of MRI services 2006/07

  • S. Barter

      Affiliations

    • Corresponding Author InformationGuarantor and correspondent: S. Barter, Royal College of Radiologists, 38 Portland Place, London W1B 1JQ, UK. Tel.: +44 1223 586578; fax: +44 1223 217886.
  • ,
  • K. Drinkwater
  • ,
  • D. Remedios

Royal College of Radiologists, London, UK

Received 1 February 2008; received in revised form 4 September 2008; accepted 10 September 2008.

In 2003 the Royal College of Radiologists Clinical Radiology Audit Sub-Committee began an audit process evaluating the standards of provision of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) services. This was prompted by the publication of the 2002 Audit Commission Report, which had identified that lack of MRI provision was responsible for more than half of the total waiting times for diagnostic imaging investigations. The audit found that the time from request to report did not meet the standard for cancer staging examinations, but nationally, was within the target set for routine orthopaedic examinations. However, national mean waiting times were longer than recommended for both cancer and orthopaedic MRI. Since then, there has been massive investment in MRI capacity, both from installation of MRI systems in NHS Trusts, and in England, from outsourcing of routine MRI cases through the Department of Health contract with an independent provider. A re-audit in 2006/7 shows that there has been a significant improvement in waiting times for routine orthopaedic examinations, but the position with cancer staging examinations has deteriorated. Control chart methodology shows that underperformance is due to common cause variation, i.e., improvements need to be made to the overall process from receiving the request for MRI to the issue of the report. Follow-up with participating departments demonstrated there were some common themes for underperformance, and suggestions for improvement are made from departments with best performance.

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0009-9260(08)00404-2

doi:10.1016/j.crad.2008.09.008

Clinical Radiology
Volume 64, Issue 3 , Pages 284-290, March 2009