Introduction: Individual and institutional disparities in CT imaging rates for patients with head injuries have long been recognized, leading to the development of well-validated clinical decision rules designed to standardize clinical practice. To assess their impact on current practice, we sought to evaluate variation in CT imaging by emergency physicians for patients presenting with head injury across the province of Alberta. Methods: A unique data warehouse merging administrative, clinical, and imaging platforms for 11 Alberta emergency departments (EDs) was created. Unique identifiers were obtained for all emergency physicians who were included in this analysis if they evaluated in excess of ten ED patients presenting with a chief complaint of “head injury”. Patients with high triage acuity (CTAS 1) were excluded, as were patients who were admitted to hospital. Descriptive statistics were employed to describe variation between physicians and sites for a 24 month period from 2013-2015. Results: 311 emergency physicians treating 20,797 patient encounters for head injury were included. Overall a total of 8,245 head injury patients (40%) received one or more CT scans. Physician variation across the 11 sites ranged from 4% -100% of head injury patients receiving a CT. Within sites CT ordering between physicians varied from 9-fold (4% - 36%) at the lowest variation site, to more than 20-fold (4% - 90%) at the highest variation site. After removing the 5% lowest and highest ordering physicians, variation in ordering continued to range from 10% - 72%. No trends were observed across the two years examined. Conclusion: This is the largest study to date examining physician level variation in CT ordering practices for ED head injury patients. We have identified marked persistent practice variation despite the presence of well-validated clinical decision rules and a relatively low risk medicolegal environment. Variable risk tolerance and limited use of validated clinical decision rules are likely contributors making this area an ideal focus for targeted interventions to improve imaging appropriateness and reduce practice variation.

Objectives: This study describes the diffusion of advanced diagnostic devices in India and assess implications for efficiency in resource use and equity.

Methods: Commodity-level import statistics, household survey data, and interviews with medical device sellers are used to assess the spread of diagnostic devices. Published qualitative evidence, case studies of diagnostic service providers, and cross-country analyses are used to identify the reasons underlying the spread of medical devices in India. Case studies of public and private providers and data from 150 hospitals in one Indian state are used to assess efficiency in resource use and the distributive impacts of diagnostic devices.

Results: High-end medical device inflows rose during the 1990s, with both supply- and demand-side factors influencing this trend. Although our results suggest that the overall quantity of advanced diagnostics in India is not excessive, there is some evidence of inefficiency in public facilities and possibly unethical practices in private diagnostic facilities. The unequal geographical distribution of magnetic resonance imaging facilities, coupled with inefficient use of medical devices in public facilities suggests inequality in access.

Conclusions: The study points to major regulatory gaps and health system inefficiencies and suggests ways in which these gaps can be addressed.