We've updated our Privacy Policy to make it clearer how we use your personal data.
We use cookies to provide you with a better experience, read our Cookie Policy
EP34210
Poster Title: National multicentre audit of current UK practice in the use of abdominal x rays for the investigation of acute abdominal pain
Submitted on 23 Oct 2020
Author(s): The Radiology Academic Network for Trainees (RADIANT)
Affiliations: The Radiology Academic Network for Trainees (RADIANT)
Poster Views: 969
Submitted on 23 Oct 2020
Author(s): The Radiology Academic Network for Trainees (RADIANT)
Affiliations: The Radiology Academic Network for Trainees (RADIANT)
Poster Views: 969
Abstract: Background
Abdominal x-rays (AXRs) are often an insensitive investigation for acute abdominal pain, and there is widespread variation in their utilisation (1). The aim of this audit was to 1: examine AXR request compliance with national RCR iRefer guidelines (2), and 2: examine the clinical value of AXRs.
Methods
All AXRs performed in the setting of acute abdominal pain across 14 UK hospitals during a week in March 2019 were examined against the iRefer guidelines. The audit was performed through the recently formed RCR Radiology Academic Network for Trainees (RADIANT).
Results
In total, approximately 50000 radiographs were performed in one week, and 1540 of these were AXRs to investigate acute abdominal pain. 95.1% (1464/1540) of AXRs were requested in accordance with iRefer guidelines. However, 42.4% (653/1540) of patients underwent subsequent imaging for abdominal pain within seven days, and 31.2% (204/653) of these subsequent studies were performed before the AXR was reported. A chi-squared test of independence revealed no statistically significant difference (X2 (1, N=1232) = 1.19, p=0.28) in the number of patients who underwent additional imaging within seven days between those who did have acute findings reported on AXR (33% (47/141)) and those who did not (28% (311/1091)).
Conclusion
The majority of AXRs are requested in accordance with national guidelines. However, a large proportion of patients undergo further cross-sectional imaging. Furthermore, patients with and without acute AXR findings are equally likely to undergo further imaging. These findings cast doubt over the utility of AXRs in the acute setting.
Summary: All AXRs performed in the setting of acute abdominal pain across 14 UK hospitals during a week in March 2019 were examined against the iRefer guidelines. The majority of AXRs are requested in accordance with national guidelines. However, a large proportion of patients undergo further cross-sectional imaging, which casts doubt over the utility of AXRs in the acute setting.References:
References
1. Boermeester, M., Gans, S., Stoker, J. and Boermeester, M., 2012. Plain abdominal radiography in acute abdominal pain; past, present, and future. International Journal of General Medicine, p.525.
2. The Royal College of Radiologists (2020) RCR iRefer guidelines, Available at: https://www.irefer.org.uk/guidelines
Abdominal x-rays (AXRs) are often an insensitive investigation for acute abdominal pain, and there is widespread variation in their utilisation (1). The aim of this audit was to 1: examine AXR request compliance with national RCR iRefer guidelines (2), and 2: examine the clinical value of AXRs.
Methods
All AXRs performed in the setting of acute abdominal pain across 14 UK hospitals during a week in March 2019 were examined against the iRefer guidelines. The audit was performed through the recently formed RCR Radiology Academic Network for Trainees (RADIANT).
Results
In total, approximately 50000 radiographs were performed in one week, and 1540 of these were AXRs to investigate acute abdominal pain. 95.1% (1464/1540) of AXRs were requested in accordance with iRefer guidelines. However, 42.4% (653/1540) of patients underwent subsequent imaging for abdominal pain within seven days, and 31.2% (204/653) of these subsequent studies were performed before the AXR was reported. A chi-squared test of independence revealed no statistically significant difference (X2 (1, N=1232) = 1.19, p=0.28) in the number of patients who underwent additional imaging within seven days between those who did have acute findings reported on AXR (33% (47/141)) and those who did not (28% (311/1091)).
Conclusion
The majority of AXRs are requested in accordance with national guidelines. However, a large proportion of patients undergo further cross-sectional imaging. Furthermore, patients with and without acute AXR findings are equally likely to undergo further imaging. These findings cast doubt over the utility of AXRs in the acute setting.
Summary: All AXRs performed in the setting of acute abdominal pain across 14 UK hospitals during a week in March 2019 were examined against the iRefer guidelines. The majority of AXRs are requested in accordance with national guidelines. However, a large proportion of patients undergo further cross-sectional imaging, which casts doubt over the utility of AXRs in the acute setting.References:
References
1. Boermeester, M., Gans, S., Stoker, J. and Boermeester, M., 2012. Plain abdominal radiography in acute abdominal pain; past, present, and future. International Journal of General Medicine, p.525.
2. The Royal College of Radiologists (2020) RCR iRefer guidelines, Available at: https://www.irefer.org.uk/guidelines
Ask the author a question about this poster.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Related Posters
Teste HPV por auto-colheita - uma alternativa ao método convencional?
Maria Beatriz Morgado; Helena Manso; Inês Pirra; Pedro Pacheco
Conocimientos Actitudes y Prácticas de drogas ilícitas en estudiantes de medicina en un hospital universitario de Santo Domingo
Juan Diego Perez De Los Santos
Joubert Syndrome: A Rare Radiological Case
Ali Akhtar
Application of LC-MS in Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis of Drugs
Tylor Keller
Deep Vein Thrombosis in urban Urgent care Centre in COVID-19 Panedemic
Dr Awais Iqbal , Dr Thomas Mathew, Dr Tom Jose, Dr Ayotunde Oguntade, Dr Kashif Shakeel, Dr Atif Mukhtar
