Article

Examination activity and delayed reporting in England’s diagnostic imaging providers: an eight-quarter computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging panel

Authors

  • Aliya Al Hajri
    • Consultant, Royal Hospital, Muscat, Oman
  • Aakriti Kapoor
    • All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Rishikesh, India
  • Aamena Ali
    • Capital Hospital, Islamabad, Pakistan
  • Aaron Fain
    • University of Kentucky College of Medicine, Lexington, United States
  • Abdulmajeed Alhumaidi Almutairi
    • Shaqra University, Saudi Arabia

Multidisciplinary Healthcare Journal Vol. 1 No. 1 (2025) Published

Open access CC BY 4.0
Article language: العربية
Download PDF · العربية View original
View full text
Cite

Cite this article

Al Hajri, A., Kapoor, A., Ali, A., Fain, A., & Almutairi, A. A. (2025). Examination activity and delayed reporting in England’s diagnostic imaging providers: an eight-quarter computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging panel. Multidisciplinary Healthcare Journal, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.68608/515c2y94 (Original work published 2026)
Share

Abstract

Introduction: Published examination counts and report-date completeness are distinct organisational measures. We examined within-provider changes in activity and the share reported after 28 days in England’s diagnostic imaging providers, separately from between-provider differences.

Methods: We analysed eight quarters from finalised public Diagnostic Imaging Dataset (DIDS) workbooks for financial years 2023/24 (April 2023–March 2024) and 2024/25 (April 2024–March 2025). A pre-estimate source-identity amendment restricted models to a complete R-coded provider panel. Computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) models used provider/quarter fixed effects, acute-setting share and provider-level uncertainty. Unknown-date identification bounds, rounding and planned cohort/specification sensitivities were kept distinct.

Results: The primary panels comprised 70 CT and 67 MRI providers, or 1096 provider–quarters. Within-provider coefficients per doubling of published activity were 8.49 percentage points for CT (95% cluster confidence interval −2.64 to 19.62) and 7.92 for MRI (−2.86 to 18.70). Unknown-date fixed-design bounds were 1.41–14.36 and 2.99–12.79, respectively; these are not confidence intervals. Removing the unknown-date cutoff expanded cohorts to 99 and 103 providers and yielded coefficients of 3.79 and 3.83.

Conclusion: Within-provider point estimates were positive but imprecise and compatible with zero. Missing-date bounds, between-provider contrasts and expanded cohorts describe different targets or uncertainty layers. The selected organisational aggregates do not establish causal congestion, urgency-specific compliance, national performance or patient benefit.

Declarations

Ethics approval
NA
Consent to participate
NA
Consent for publication
NA
Funding
NA
Competing interests
NA
Author contributions
NA
Data availability
NA
Registration
NA
Acknowledgements
NA

Comments

Commenting requires an account and sign-in.