Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2009 Feb;4(3):76-86.

Management of MRI wait lists in Canada

Affiliations

Management of MRI wait lists in Canada

Derek J Emery et al. Healthc Policy. 2009 Feb.

Abstract

Excessive wait times for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies are a major problem in the Canadian healthcare system. To determine how requests for MRI studies are managed, the authors performed a survey of public MRI facilities in Canada. Ninety-six per cent had some method to triage MRI requests. However, only 42% had documented guidelines for prioritization, and none employed quality assurance methods to ensure that guidelines were followed. Target timelines for each prioritization category varied widely. Sixteen per cent of centres were not able to meet their target timelines for any prioritization category, and 45% of centres met target times only for some prioritization categories. Strategies for dealing with wait lists primarily involved attempts to increase capacity. No centres attempted to reduce wait times by decreasing inappropriate requests. There appears to be a need to standardize MRI wait list management given the variation in management practices and wait times observed.

Les temps d'attente excessifs pour l'imagerie par résonance magéntique (IRM) constituent un grand problème pour le système de santé canadien. Afin de comprendre comment sont gérées les demandes d'examen par IRM, les auteurs ont mené un sondage auprès des centres d'IRM au Canada. Dans 96 % des centres, il existe une forme de triage des demandes d'IRM. Cependant, seulement 42 % sont munis de lignes directrices documentées pour établir la priorisation, et aucun d'entre eux n'emploie de méthodes d'assurance de la qualité afin d'assurer que les lignes directrices sont suivies. On observe une grande variation entre les calendriers ciblés pour chacune des catégories de priorité. Seize pour cent des centres ne peuvent respecter les temps visés, pour toute catégorie de priorité. Quarante-cinq pour cent des centres respectent les temps visés, uniquement pour certaines catégories de priorité. Les stratégies employées pour régler la question des listes d'attente consistent principalement en des tentatives pour accroître la capacité. Aucun centre n'a tenté de diminuer les temps d'attente en réduisant le nombre de demandes inappropriées. Étant donné les temps d'attente observés et la variation dans les modes de gestion, il semble y avoir un besoin de normaliser la gestion des listes d'attente pour l'IRM.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

FIGURE 1.
FIGURE 1.
Factors affecting prioritization
FIGURE 2.
FIGURE 2.
Target timelines for scans prioritized as urgent and those prioritized as elective

References

    1. American College of Radiology (ACR) ACR Appropriateness Criteria 2000. Radiology. 2000;215(Suppl.):1–1511. - PubMed
    1. Ariste R., Fortin G. Could MRI and CT Scanners Be Operated More Intensively in Canada? Healthcare Policy. 2007;3(1):1–8. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Canadian Association of Radiologists. Diagnostic Imaging Referral Guidelines: A Guide for Physicians. Ottawa: Author; 2005.
    1. Hadorn D.C. Steering Committee of the Western Canada Waiting List Project. Developing Priority Criteria for Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Results from the Western Canada Waiting List Project. Canadian Association of Radiologists Journal. 2002;53(4):210–18. - PubMed
    1. Iron K., Przybysz R., Laupacis A. Access to MRI in Ontario: Addressing the Information Gap. Toronto: Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences; 2003.

LinkOut - more resources