Cohort study of Western Australia computed tomography utilisation patterns and their policy implications

BMC Health Services Research

C D’Arcy J Holman³  Rachael E Moorin²  David AJ Gibson¹ 

[1]Centre for Health Services Research, School of Population Health (M431), The University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Hwy, Crawley 6009, WA, Australia

[2]Faculty of Health Sciences, Curtin University, Perth, Australia

[3]School of Population Health, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia

关键词: Health service utilisation;    CT;    Computed tomography;   

Others  :  1092303
DOI  :  10.1186/s12913-014-0526-0

 received in 2013-11-12, accepted in 2014-10-13,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Computed tomography (CT) scanning is a relatively high radiation dose diagnostic imaging modality with increasing concerns about radiation exposure burden at the population level in scientific literature. This study examined the epidemiology of adult CT utilisation in Western Australia (WA) in both the public hospital and private practice settings, and the policy implications.

Methods

Retrospective cohort design using aggregate adult CT data from WA public hospitals and Medical Benefits Schedule (MBS) (mid-2006 to mid-2012). CT scanning trends by sex, age, provider setting and anatomical areas were explored using crude CT scanning rates, age-standardised CT scanning rates and Poisson regression modelling.

Results

From mid-2006 to mid-2012 the WA adult CT scanning rate was 129 scans per 1,000 person-years (PY). Females were consistently scanned at a higher rate than males. Patients over 65 years presented the highest scanning rates (over 300 scans per 1,000 PY). Private practice accounted for 73% of adult CT scans, comprising the majority in every anatomical area. In the private setting females predominately held higher age-standardised CT scanning rates than males. This trend reversed in the public hospital setting. Patients over 85 years in the public hospital setting were the most likely age group CT scanned in nine of ten anatomical areas. Patients in the private practice setting aged 85+ years were relatively less prominent across every anatomical area, and the least likely age group scanned in facial bones and multiple areas CT scans.

Conclusion

In comparison to the public hospital setting, the MBS subsidised private sector tended to service females and relatively younger patients with a more diverse range of anatomical areas, constituting the majority of CT scans performed in WA. Patient risk and subsequent burden is greater for females, lower ages and some anatomical areas. In the context of a national health system, Australia has various avenues to monitor radiation exposure levels, improve physician training and modify funding mechanisms to ensure individual and population medical radiation exposure is as low as reasonably achievable.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Gibson et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Commission E: European Guidelines on Quality Criteria for Computed Tomography. EUR 16262 EN. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxenburg; 1999.
• [2][http://stats.oecd.org] webcite OECD StatExtracts: []
• [3]Kalender WA, Wolf H, Suess C: Dose reduction in CT by anatomically adapted tube current modulation. Part II Phantom measurements. Med Phys 1999, 26:2248-2253. 26
• [4]Shrimpton PC, Wall BF: The increasing importance of x-ray computed tomography as a source of medical exposure. Radiat Prot Dosim 1995, 57:413-415.
• [5]Wall BF: Implementation of DRLs in the UK. Radiat Prot Dosim 2005, 114(1–3):183-187.
• [6]Golding SJ, Shrimpton PC: Radiation Dose in CT: are we meeting the challenge? British J Radiol 2002, 75:1-4.
• [7]Moorin RE, Forsyth R, Gibson D, Fox R: Radiation dosimetry assessment of routine CT scanning protocols used in Western Australia. J Radiol Prot 2013, 33:295-312.
• [8]Pearce MS, Little MP, McHugh K, Lee C, Kim KP, Howe NL, Ronkers CM, Rajaraman P, Craft AW, Parker L, and Berrington de Gonzalez A: Radiation exposure from CT scans in childhood and subsequent risk of leukaemia and brain tumours: a retrospective cohort study.Lancet 2012. Published online June 7 DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60815-0.
• [9]Mathews JD, Forsythe AV, Brady Z, Butler MW, Goergen SK, Byrnes GB, Giles GG, Wallace AB, Anderson PR, Guiver TA, McGale P, Cain TM, Dowty JG, Bickerstaffe AC, Darby SC: Cancer risk in 680 000 people exposed to computed tomography scans in childhood or adolescence: data linkage study of 11 million Australians. Br Med J 2013, 346:f2360.
• [10]Sodickson A: CT radiation risks coming into clearer focus. Br Med J 2013, 346:f3102.
• [11]Berrington De Gonzalez A, Darby S: Risk of cancer from diagnostic x-rays: estimates for the UK and 14 other countries. Lancet 2004, 363:345-351.
• [12]Berrington De Gonzalez A, Mahesh M, Kim KP, Bhargavan M, Lewis R, Mettler F, Land C: Projected cancer risks from computed tomographic scans performed in the united states in 2007. Arch Intern Med 2009, 169(22):2071-2077.
• [13]Redberg RF: Cancer risks and radiation exposure from computed tomographic scans. Arch Intern Med 2009, 169(22):2049-2050.
• [14]Brenner DJ, Hall EJ: Computed Tomography: An increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med 2007, 357:227-2284.
• [15]Mettler FAJ, Wiest PW, Locken JA, Kelsey CA: CT scanning: patterns of use and dose. J Radiol Prot 2000, 20(4):353-359.
• [16]Zweifel P, Ferrari M: Is there a Sisyphus Syndrome in health care? In Health Economics Worldwide. Edited by Zweifel P, Frech H III. Kluwer, Dordrecht, NL; 1992.
• [17]Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation. United Nations, New York; 2000.
• [18][http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/health_glance-2011-en] webcite OECD: Health at a glance 2011: OECD Indicators. OECD Publishing. ; 2011
• [19][http://www.imagingpathways.health.wa.gov.au/] webcite Diagnostic Imaging Pathways. []
• [20]Committee to Assess Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: Health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation: BEIR VII-Phase 2. In.: Board on Radiation Effects Research, Division on Earth and Life Studies, National Research Council.; 2006
• [21][https://www.medicareaustralia.gov.au/statistics/mbs_item.shtml] webcite Medicare Item Reports. []
• [22]3101.0 - Australian Demographic Statistics, Dec 2011. Estimated Resident Population by Single Year of age 1971–2011 in Western Australia. ABS, Canberra; 2012.
• [23]Strauss KJ, Kaste SC: The ALARA (as Low as reasonably achievable) concept in pediatric interventional and fluoroscopic imaging: striving to keep radiation doses as Low as possible during fluoroscopy of pediatric patients—a white paper executive summary. Radiology 2006, 240(3):621-622.
• [24]Mayo JR, Aldrich J, Müller NL: Radiation exposure at chest CT: a statement of the fleischner Society1. Radiology 2003, 228(1):15-21.
• [25]Gibson DA, Moorin RE, Semmens J, Holman DAJ: The disproportionate risk burden of CT scanning on females and younger adults in Australia: a retrospective cohort study. Aust N Z J Public Health 2014, 38(5):441-448.
• [26]Managing patient dose in computed tomography. International Commission on Radiological Protection Publication 87 Ann ICRP 2000, 30:4.
• [27]International Commission on Radiological Protection: Recomendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection publication number 103. In.: ICRP; 2007
• [28]Commission E: European Guidance on Estimating Population Doses from Medical X-Ray Procedures, Radiation Protection No.154. Health Protection Agency, Chilton, Didcot, Oxfordshire; 2008.
• [29][http://www.arpansa.gov.au/services/NDRL/current.cfm] webcite Current Australian National Diagnostic Reference Levels for MDCT []
• [30]Shrimpton PC, Hillier MC, Lewis MA, Dunn M: Doses from computed tomography (CT) examinations in the UK - NRPB-W67. National Radiological Protection Board, Oxon; 2003.
• [31]Takx RA, Schoepf UJ, Moscariello A, Das M, Rowe G, Schoenberg SO, Fink C, Henzler T: Coronary CT angiography: Comparison of a novel iterative reconstruction with filtered back projection for reconstruction of low-dose CT—Initial experience. Eur J Radiol 2013, 82(2):275-280.
• [32]Shrimpton PC, Jones DG, Hillier MC, Wall BF, Le Heron JC, Faulkner K: Survey of CT Practice in the UK. Part 2: Dosimetric Aspects. NRPB-R249, Chilton; 1991.
• [33]Krille L, Hammer GP, Merzenich H, Zeeb H: Systematic review on physician's knowledge about radiation doses and radiation risks of computed tomography. Eur J Radiol 2010, 76(1):36-41.
• [34]Lee CI, Haims AH, Monico EP, Brink JA, Forman HP: Diagnostic CT scans: Assessment of patient, physician, and radiologist awareness of radiation dose and possible risks. Radiology 2004, 231(2):393-398.
• [35]Perko T: Radiation risk perception: a discrepancy between the experts and the general population. J Environ Radioact 2014, 133:86-91.
• [36]Zhou G, Wong D, Nguyen L, Mendelson R: Student and intern awareness of ionising radiation exposure from common diagnostic imaging procedures. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 2010, 54(1):17-23.
• [37]Lee R, Chu W, Graham C, Rainer T, Ahuja A: Knowledge of radiation exposure in common radiological investigations: a comparison between radiologists and non-radiologists. Emerg Med J 2012, 29:306-308.
• [38]Bairstow P, Persaud J, Mendelson R, Long N: Reducing inappropriate diagnostic practice through education and decision support. Int J Qual Health Care 2010, 22(3):194-200.
• [39]Simpson G, Hartrick G: Use of thoracic CT by general practitioners. Med J Aus 2007, 187:43-46.
• [40]Lehnert B, Bree R: Analysis of the appropriateness of outpatient CT and MRI referred from primary care clinics at an academic medical center: how critical is the need for improved decision support? J Amer Coll Radiol 2010, 7(3):192-197.
• [41]Clarke JC, Cranley K, Kelly BE, Bell K, Smith PHS: Provision of MRI can significantly reduce CT collective dose. British J Radiol 2001, 74:926-931.
• [42]DHSS (NI): Report of a CT radiation dose survey in Northern Ireland. Edited by Party CISAC-CTW; June 1998
• [43]Clarke J, Cranley K, Robinson J, Smith P, Workman A: Application of draft European Commission reference levels to a regional CT dose survey. Br J Radiol 2000, 73:43-50.
• [44]Winklehner A, Karlo C, Puippe G, Schmidt B, Flohr T, Goetti R, Pfammatter T, Frauenfelder T, Alkadhi H: Raw data-based iterative reconstruction in body CTA: evaluation of radiation dose saving potential. Eur Radiol 2011, 21(12):2521-2526.