A Survey of Clinicians’ Preferences Regarding Style and Content of Abdominal Computed Tomography Radiology Reports

Teeravut Tubtawee; Rawiporn Roma; Wiwatana Tanomkiat; Keerati Hongsakul

Authors

Teeravut Tubtawee Department of Radiology Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University, Thailand https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7205-7397
Rawiporn Roma Department of Radiology Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University, Thailand https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2465-0326
Wiwatana Tanomkiat Department of Radiology Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University, Thailand https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9881-9713
Keerati Hongsakul Department of Radiology Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University, Thailand https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5488-7514

Keywords:

radiology report style, radiologist, preference, computed tomography

Abstract

OBJECTIVE Radiology reports should be readable and understandable, while ensuring there is sufficient pertinent information. This study was conducted to survey the preferred style and content of radiology reports of referring clinicians.
METHODS One hundred and forty questionnaires were sent to clinicians working in departments that frequently request abdominal CT examinations in Songklanagarind Hospital. The participants were asked to rank a set of four radiology reports each with different styles and content (report types A, B, C and D). They were also asked about valued features which should be included in a radiology report. Data were analyzed by normal rank score for the most preferred and using the Kemeny-Young method for preference order. Statistical significance was determined by Kruskal Wallis rank sum tests. P < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.
RESULTS Eighty-nine responses were received. The most significant preference was for a structured style with more detail (report type C) (69.7%). Clinical information, quality of examination, measurement of the normal organs and recommendations were statistically significant factors considered appropriate to be included in the radiology report (p < 0.05). Route of administration, dose
and name of contrast media were considered statistically inappropriate with statistically significant (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS The preferred report style was structured and included more detail and included clinical information, quality of the examination, measurements of normal organ and recommendations.

References

Bosmans JM, Weyler JJ, Parizel PM. Structure and content of radiology reports, a quantitative and qualitative study in eight medical centers. Eur J Radiol. 2009;72:354-8.

Schwartz LH, Panicek DM, Berk AR, Li Y, Hricak H. Improving communication of diagnostic radiolo-gy findings through structured reporting. Radiol-ogy. 2011;260:174-81.

Kushner DC, Lucey LL, American College of Radi-ology. Diagnostic radiology reporting and com-munication: the ACR guideline. J Am Coll Radiol. 2005;2:15-21.

Stacy G. Radiology written report guideline pro-ject. The royal Australian and New Zealand col-lage of radiologists. 2010 Decemeber. [Cited 2017 Apr 14]. Available from: https://studylib.net/doc/18474153/radiology-written-report-guide-line-project.

Naik SS, Hanbidge A, Wilson SR. Radiology reports: examining radiologist and clinician preferences regarding style and content. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001;176:591-8.

Plumb AA, Grieve FM, Khan SH. Survey of hospi-tal clinicians’ preferences regarding the format of radiology reports. Clin Radiol. 2009;64:386-94; 395-6.

Sistrom CL, Honeyman-Buck J. Free text versus structured format: information transfer efficiency of radiology reports. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005; 185:804-12.

Weiss DL, Langlotz CP. Structured reporting: pa-tient care enhancement or productivity nightmare? Radiology. 2008;249:739-47.

Johnson AJ. Radiology report quality: a cohort study of point-and-click structured reporting versus conventional dictation. Acad Radiol. 2002; 9:1056-61.

Reiner BI, Knight N, Siegel EL. Radiology report-ing, past, present, and future: the radiologist’s perspective. J Am Coll Radiol. 2007;4:313-9.

Sobel JL, Pearson ML, Gross K, Desmond KA, Har-rison ER, Rubenstein LV, et al. Information con-tent and clarity of radiologists’ reports for chest radiography. Acad Radiol. 1996;3:709-17.

Hobby JL, Tom BD, Todd C, Bearcroft PW, Dixon AK. Communication of doubt and certainty in ra-diological reports. Br J Radiol. 2000;73:999-1001.

Sierra AE, Bisesi MA, Rosenbaum TL, Potchen EJ. Readability of the radiologic report. Invest Radiol. 1992;27:236-9.

Lafortune M, Breton G, Baudouin J. The radiolog-ical report: what is useful for the referring physi-cian? Can Assoc Radiol J. 1988;39:140-3.

Kushner DC, Lucey LL. American College of Radi-ology. Diagnostic radiology reporting and com-munication: the ACR guideline. J Am Coll Radiol. 2005;2:15-21.