The diagnostic radiological image – identifying the benefits from the literature

Background The volume and costs of diagnostic imaging examinations are rising (NHS England 2016). Therefore, there is a need to ensure that the maximum benefit is extracted from these resources. Benefits management literature suggests that the initial step for benefits realisation is identification (Bradley 2006). A literature review was undertaken to assess existing understanding of the available benefits. Method A structured narrative approach was utilised in order to promote trustworthiness & dependability, whilst minimizing bias and error. 5 databases (CINAHL, Cochrane, ProQuest, PubMed, ScienceDirect) were interrogated using search terms identified through application of the SPIDER tool: SPIDER tool Search terms Sample Imag* NOT imagina* NOT imagine* NOT imagini* Phenomenon of Interest Diagnostic OR medical OR radiologic* OR radiograph* Design Any Evaluation Role* OR valu* OR benefi* Research type Qualitative OR mixed methods The returned literature was screened for quality and content using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Results After screening, n=519 papers were returned and categorized as follows: Primary benefits (n=470). These are benefits extracted from the image which align with the rationale for acquisition (e.g. detection). These benefits tend to accrue directly to clinical stakeholders and patients by extension. Secondary benefits (n=63). These are benefits unrelated to the rationale for acquisition. They were categorised as being educational (e.g. promoting understanding) or relational (e.g. promoting communication, engagement, or trust) in nature. These benefits may accrue to a wider group of stakeholders, e.g. patients or carers. Conclusion There is currently limited evidence in the literature of appreciation of secondary benefits. This lack of recognition means that some of these benefits may not be realized. There is a need, therefore, for further work to identify these benefits, if they are to be accessible for all stakeholders. References The reference should be numbered and arranged according to the alphabetical order by the author’s last name. 1. Bradley, G. (2006) Benefits Realisation Management – A practical guide to achieving benefits through change, Hampshire, UK 2. Cooke, A., Smith, D., Booth, A. (2003) Beyond PICO: the SPIDER tool for qualitative evidence synthesis, Qualitative Health Research 22(10) 1435-1443 3. NHS England (2016) Diagnostic Imaging Dataset Annual Statistical Release 2015/16. Retrieved from https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/diagnostic-imaging-dataset/diagnostic-imaging-dataset-2015-16-data/ on 12/06/2016