Current and future funding streams for paediatric postmortem imaging: European Society of Paediatric Radiology survey results

• Published in: Pediatric radiology Vol. 53; no. 2; pp. 273 - 281
• Main Authors: Chambers, Greg, Shelmerdine, Susan C., Aertsen, Michael, Dohna, Martha, Goergen, Stacy K., Johnson, Karl, Klein, Willemijn M., Miller, Elka, Pärtan, Gerald, Perry, David, Rao, Padma, Robinson, Claire, Stegmann, Joachim, Taranath, Ajay, Whitby, Elspeth, van Rijn, Rick R., Arthurs, Owen J.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Berlin/Heidelberg Springer Berlin Heidelberg 01.02.2023; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Autopsies; Autopsy; Autopsy - methods; Child; Children; Diagnostic Imaging - methods; Equipment costs; Female; Fetuses; Forensic Medicine; Forensic science; Funding; Health care; Health care policy; Humans; Image acquisition; Imaging; Medical imaging; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Neuroradiology; Nuclear Medicine; Oncology; Original; Original Article; Pediatrics; Pregnancy; Questions; Radiology; Surveys; Surveys and Questionnaires; Ultrasound; Survey; Computed tomography; Autopsy; Funding; Postmortem; Perinatal; Children; Magnetic resonance imaging
• ISSN: 1432-1998; 0301-0449; 1432-1998
• DOI: 10.1007/s00247-022-05485-6

Background Perinatal and childhood postmortem imaging has been accepted as a noninvasive alternative or adjunct to autopsy. However, the variation in funding models from institution to institution is a major factor prohibiting uniform provision of this service. Objective To describe current funding models employed in European and non-European institutions offering paediatric postmortem imaging services and to discuss the perceived barriers to future postmortem imaging service provision. Materials and methods A web-based 16-question survey was distributed to members of the European Society of Paediatric Radiology (ESPR) and ESPR postmortem imaging task force over a 6-month period (March-August 2021). Survey questions related to the radiologic and autopsy services being offered and how each was funded within the respondent’s institute. Results Eighteen individual responses were received (13/18, 72.2% from Europe). Only one-third of the institutions (6/18, 33.3%) have fully funded postmortem imaging services, with the remainder receiving partial (6/18, 33.3%) or no funding (5/18, 27.8%). Funding (full or partial) was more commonly available for forensic work (13/18, 72%), particularly where this was nationally provided. Where funding was not provided, the imaging and reporting costs were absorbed by the institute. Conclusion Increased access is required for the expansion of postmortem imaging into routine clinical use. This can only be achieved with formal funding on a national level, potentially through health care commissioning and acknowledgement by health care policy makers and pathology services of the value the service provides following the death of a fetus or child. Funding should include the costs involved in training, equipment, reporting and image acquisition.