ObjectivesThe largest proportion of general practitioner (GP) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI is musculoskeletal (MSK), with consistent annual growth. With limited supporting evidence and potential harms from early imaging overuse, we evaluated practice to improve pathways and patient safety.MethodsCohort evaluation of routinely collected diagnostic and general practice data across a UK metropolitan primary care population. We reviewed patient characteristics, results and healthcare utilisation.ResultsOf 306 MSK-MRIs requested by 107 clinicians across 29 practices, only 4.9% (95% CI ±2.4%) appeared clearly indicated and only 16.0% (95% CI ±4.1%) received appropriate prior therapy. 37.0% (95% CI ±5.5%) documented patient imaging request. Most had chronic symptoms and half had psychosocial flags. Mental health was addressed in only 11.8% (95% CI ±6.3%) of chronic sufferers with psychiatric illness, suggesting a solely pathoanatomical approach to MSK care. Only 7.8% (95% CI ±3.0%) of all patients were appropriately managed without additional referral. 1.3% (95% CI ±1.3%) of scans revealed diagnoses leading to change in treatment (therapeutic yield). Most imaged patients received pathoanatomical explanations to their symptoms, often based on expected age or activity-related changes. Only 16.7% (95% CI ±4.2%) of results appeared correctly interpreted by GPs, with spurious overperception of surgical targets in 65.4% (95% CI ±5.3%) who suffered ‘low-value’ (ineffective, harmful or wasteful) post-MRI referral cascades due to misdiagnosis and overdiagnosis. Typically, 20%–30% of GP specialist referrals convert to a procedure, whereas MRI-triggered referrals showed near-zero conversion rate. Imaged patients experienced considerable delay to appropriate care. Cascade costs exceeded direct-MRI costs and GP-MSK-MRI potentially more than doubles expenditure compared with physiotherapist-led assessment services, for little-to-no added therapeutic yield, unjustifiable by cost–consequence or cost–utility analysis.ConclusionUnfettered GP-MSK-MRI use has reached unaccceptable indication creep and disutility. Considerable avoidable harm occurs through ubiquitous misinterpretation and salient low-value referral cascades for two-thirds of imaged patients, for almost no change in treatment. Any marginally earlier procedural intervention for a tiny fraction of patients is eclipsed by negative consequences for the vast majority. Only 1–2 patients need to be scanned for one to suffer mismanagement. Direct-access imaging is neither clinically, nor cost-effective and deimplementation could be considered in this setting. GP-MSK-MRI fuels unnecessary healthcare utilisation, generating nocebic patient beliefs and expectations, whilst appropriate care is delayed and a high burden of psychosocial barriers to recovery appear neglected.

Background Imaging detects acoustic neuroma, a rare pathology associated with asymmetric sensorineural hearing loss and tinnitus, that is mostly managed conservatively. Scanning indication is debatable, without evaluation in primary care, despite the high burden of audiovestibular symptoms and commissioning of general practitioner imaging. Method Cohort evaluation of two years' internal auditory meatus magnetic resonance imaging in primary care. Results Of 200 scans requested by 77 general practitioners, only 33 per cent conformed to guideline indications. Most were referred to specialists, regardless of result. Only 10.5 per cent were appropriately imaged to rule out neuroma without specialist referral. One neuroma was detected (diagnostic yield 0.5 per cent) in a patient already referred. Incidental findings were shown in 44.5 per cent, triggering low-value cascades in 18 per cent. Whilst fewer than 1 in a 1000 imaged patients may improve through surgery, 1 in 5 can suffer negative imaging cascades. Conclusion Considering the bi-directional relationship between distress and audio-vestibular symptoms, anxiety-provoking imaging overuse should be minimised. In low-prevalence primary care, retrocochlear imaging could be limited to those with asymmetric sensorineural hearing loss. Alternatively, assessment and imaging could be shifted to audiologist-led settings, with a wider therapeutic offer, likely more beneficial and cost-effective than conventional surgical pathways.

Numerous drivers push specialist diagnostic approaches down to primary care (‘diagnostic downshift’), intuitively welcomed by clinicians and patients. However, primary care’s different population and processes result in under-recognised, unintended consequences. Testing performs poorer in primary care, with indication creep due to earlier, more undifferentiated presentation and reduced accuracy due to spectrum bias and the ‘false-positive paradox’. In low-prevalence settings, tests without near-100% specificity have their useful yield eclipsed by greater incidental or false-positive findings. Ensuing cascades and multiplier effects can generate clinician workload, patient anxiety, further low-value tests, referrals, treatments and a potentially nocebic population ‘disease’ burden of unclear benefit. Increased diagnostics earlier in pathways can burden patients and stretch general practice (GP) workloads, inducing downstream service utilisation and unintended ‘market failure’ effects. Evidence is tenuous for reducing secondary care referrals, providing patient reassurance or meaningfully improving clinical outcomes. Subsequently, inflated investment in per capita testing, at a lower level in a healthcare system, may deliver diminishing or even negative economic returns. Test cost poorly represents ‘value’, neglecting under-recognised downstream consequences, which must be balanced against therapeutic yield. With lower positive predictive values, more tests are required per true diagnosis and cost-effectiveness is rarely robust. With fixed secondary care capacity, novel primary care testing is an added cost pressure, rarely reducing hospital activity. GP testing strategies require real-world evaluation, in primary care populations, of all downstream consequences. Test formularies should be scrutinised in view of the setting of care, with interventions to focus rational testing towards those with higher pretest probabilities, while improving interpretation and communication of results.

No abstract

No abstract