Radiology reporting in oncology—oncologists' perspective

Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology, 2013

The written radiology report is the dominant method by which radiologists communicate the results of diagnostic and interventional imaging procedures. It has an important impact on decisions about further investigation and management. Its form and content can be influential in reducing harm to patients and mitigating risk for practitioners but varies markedly with little standardisation in practice. Until now, the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists has not had a guideline for the written report. International guidelines on this subject are not evidence based and lack description of development methods. The current guideline seeks to improve the quality of the written report by providing evidence-based recommendations for good practice. The following attributes of the report are addressed by recommendations: 1 Content • Clinical information available to the radiologist at the time the report was created • Technical details of the procedure • Examination quality and limitations • Findings (both normal and abnormal) • Comparison with previous studies • Pathophysiological diagnosis • Differential diagnoses • Clinical correlation and/or answer to the clinical question • Recommendations, particularly for further imaging and other investigations • Conclusion/opinion/impression 2 Format • Length • Format • Language • Confidence and certainty • Clarity • Readability • Accuracy • Communication of discrepancies between an original verbal or written report and the final report • Proofreading/editing of own and trainee reports

European Radiology, 2018

Purpose To assess the effectiveness of implementing a quality improvement project in a clinical cancer network directed at the response assessment of oncology patients according to RECIST-criteria. Methods Requests and reports of computed tomography (CT) studies from before (n = 103) and after (n = 112) implementation of interventions were compared. The interventions consisted of: a multidisciplinary working agreement with a clearly described workflow; subspecialisation of radiologists; adaptation of the Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS); structured reporting. Results The essential information included in the requests and the reports improved significantly after implementation of the interventions. In the requests, mentioning start date increased from 2% to 49%; date of baseline CT from 7% to 64%; nadir date from 1% to 41%. In the reports, structured layout increased from 14% to 86%; mentioning target lesions from 18% to 80% and non-target lesions from 11% to 80%; measurements stored in PACS increased from 76% to 97%; labelled key images from 38% to 95%; all p values < 0.001. Conclusion The combination of implementation of an optimised workflow, subspecialisation and structured reporting led to significantly better quality radiology reporting for oncology patients receiving chemotherapy. The applied multifactorial approach can be used within other radiology subspeciality areas as well. Key points • Undeveloped subspecialisation makes adherence to RECIST guidelines difficult in general hospitals. • A clinical cancer network provides opportunities to improve healthcare. • Optimised workflow, subspecialisation and structured reporting substantially improve request and report quality. • Good interdisciplinary communication between oncologists, radiologists and others contributes to quality improvement.

American Journal of Roentgenology, 2006

Journal of the American College of Radiology, 2010

The aim of this study was to seek physicians' perspectives on radiology reporting systems, so that reporting systems can begin to be reorganized and made more patient centered by giving patients greater access to their personal health information. Methods: Focus-group methodology was used to explore physicians' views on direct patient access to radiologic test results. Subjects for the two groups were physicians at a single academic medical center. Transcripts were analyzed using thematic content analysis. Results: Most participants were dissatisfied with current reporting systems. Both radiologists and referring physicians (RPs) were aware that patients are not satisfied with the current system for notification of radiologic test results, and both thought that patients should have access to personal health information and take responsibility for their own health care. Regarding direct patient online access to results, both radiologists and RPs were concerned that patients would not understand report contents and that such access would lead to greater patient anxiety and demands on RPs' time. Referring physicians were also concerned that direct patient access to results would cause RPs to lose some control in the patient-physician relationship. Both radiologists and RPs preferred that any system for direct patient access incorporate a time delay and be tested for effect before being implemented. Conclusions: Revisions attempting to increase the patient-centeredness of care in the area of radiology reporting should be developed and tested to 1) minimize adverse effects on patient anxiety; 2) optimize timing, considering effects on both patients and RPs; and 3) simultaneously address problems with between-physician reporting methods.

Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR, 2015

The aim of this study was to evaluate referring physicians&#39; perceptions of multimedia-enhanced radiology reporting (MERR) as an alternative to traditional text-only radiology reporting. MERR supplements text-only reports by embedding user-friendly interactive hyperlinks to key images and graphically plotting target lesion size longitudinally over time. Of 402 physicians responding to a web-based survey, 200 (50 each medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, neurosurgeons, and pulmonologists) practicing in the United States fulfilled criteria to complete an online survey with questions focusing on satisfaction with current text-only reports and the perceived value of image- and data-enriched reporting. The mean respondent age was 46 years, with a mean of 15 years in posttraining clinical practice (85% men; 47% from academic medical centers). Although 80% were satisfied with the format of their current text-only radiology reports, 80% believed that MERR would represent an improv...

Canadian Association of Radiologists Journal, 2020

Objectives: This study is an evaluation of the emergency department (ED) satisfaction with the current radiologic reporting system used at a major Northeastern academic medical center. The radiology reports are the main form of communication and usually the final product of any radiological investigation delivered to clinicians. The aim of this study was to improve current radiology reporting practices and to better tailor reports to match the needs and expectations of ED clinicians. Methods: A 9-question online survey was sent to ED residents, fellows, faculty, and nurse practitioners/advanced practice providers at a major Northeastern academic medical center in the United States. For the open-ended section, coding and emergent theme categorization was conducted for quantification of responses. The survey was designed to evaluate the attitudes toward the structure, style, form, and wording used in reports. Results: The response rate was 48.6% (68/140). The ED respondents were gener...

Radiology, 2011

To investigate and compare the opinions and expectations regarding the radiology report of radiologists and referring clinicians and to identify trends, discordance, and discontent.

American Journal of Roentgenology, 2001

OBJECTIVE. The introduction of picture archiving and communication systems (PACS) frequently includes the option of computer-generated itemized reports. This motivated us to reassess the merits of traditional prose dictated reports. This study examines radiologist and clinician preferences regarding report style and content. MATERIALS AND METHODS. The study was conducted in two parts. The first part was a retrospective audit of existing medical imaging prose reports to determine their content. The second part comprised a questionnaire containing three mock clinical scenarios. Three pairs of reports were provided for each scenario, with only essential information in the first pair, some optional information in the second, and the most complete report in the third. Each pair consisted of a prose and itemized report with identical content. Participants ranked reports by preference and were asked specific questions regarding report content. The questionnaires were mailed to referring clinicians and administered during an interactive forum to staff radiologists, radiology fellows, and radiology residents. RESULTS. The audit of existing reports showed a wide variation in all fields with consistency limited to a given radiologist. Responses to the questionnaire showed that, in general, a majority of radiologists and referring clinicians preferred itemized reports. The itemized report with the most detailed content was ranked highest of all three scenarios. CONCLUSION. Prose reports foster a lack of standardization of content among different radiologists. Itemized reports facilitate complete documentation of information and measurements and are more popular with both radiologists and referring clinicians.

Patient Education and Counseling, 2015

Mutual understanding in inter-professional communication is of paramount importance in health care [1]. With the introduction of electronic communication, traditional inter-professional communication is challenged. This is particularly evident in radiology, where communication of radiological images and reports now can be achieved electronically, based on digital picture and archiving systems (PACS) [2]. Thereby, images and reports can be reached instantly and simultaneously in e.g. surgical theatres, wards and outpatient clinics, and at remote sites outside hospitals. This is in sharp contrast to the traditional way of conveying imaging results, showing images on light-boxes and storing the only copy of the analogue film in the radiology file room. In parallel, many radiology departments strive for ''paper-free'' communication with clinicians, replacing paper referral forms with electronic referrals (and reports). PACS has clearly facilitated technical communication of imaging data [2], and also impacts work routines in radiology [3]. However, it has also been shown that consultations with radiologists decreased when hard copy films were replaced by workstations [4], but reports on effects on communication between radiologists and referring clinicians are conflicting [5]. The other aspect of inter-professional communication relates to its information value. The quality of communication from referring clinicians to radiologists has significant impact on clinical patient handling and safety [6-10]. Thus, request forms with adequate clinical information are essential to guide the radiologist and technician in planning and performing the examination and to obtain a correct diagnosis [11] and a clinically useful radiology report [12]. A previous study showed that of 100 request forms sent for MRI, 63% contained poor or insufficient information [13]. Inadequate communication of clinical data from referring clinicians to radiologists may have significant impact on diagnosis, cost and

Radiologia Brasileira, 2019

Qual formato de laudo radiológico é preferido pelos médicos solicitantes: análise prospectiva em uma população médica de um hospital universitário