To analyze if an iPad-based patient briefing can serve as a digital alternative to conventional documentations prior to radiological examinations. One hundred one patients referred for routine MRI were randomized into two groups, who underwent iPad-based and classic written briefing in opposite order. For each briefing completion time, completeness and correctness were noted. Patient's knowledge about the content of either briefing modality was subsequently tested. The influence of patient-related factors on the performance of the electronic briefing (EB) was analyzed. Finally, the patient's subjective impression of the EB was assessed. The mean durations were 4.4±2.2 min for EB and 1.7±1.3 min for the classic briefing (p<0.01). All iPad briefings were returned entirely filled out, whereas 11 % of the classic forms were returned with missing data. No significant differences in memorization of the briefing's information were objectified. There was a positive correlation between the duration of EB and age (r=0.53; p<0.01), whereas a negative correlation was found between computer skills and patient's age (r=−0.55; p<0.01) or duration of EB (r=−0.62; p<0.01). More than half of the study patients would prefer EB in the future; another 29 % had no preference at all. Patient briefing on iPads transfers the information for the patients equally well compared to the classic written approach. Although iPad briefing took patients longer to perform, the majority would prefer it to written consent briefings in the future. Nevertheless, measures have to be undertaken to improve the overall acceptance and performance.

To evaluate the feasibility of an iPad-based documented patient briefing for Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) examinations. A standard briefing sheet and questionnaire for a MRI scan was converted from paper form into an iPad application. Twenty patients, who had been referred for an MRI scan, were briefed about the examination in paper form as well as via the iPad application before performing the MRI scan. Time each patient needed for the briefing and the number of questions that came up were documented. Patients' acceptance of the electronic briefing was assessed using a questionnaire. The mean processing time was 2.36 min (range 0.58 to 09.35 min., standard deviation ±2.05 min) for the paper-based briefing and 4.15 min (range 1.56 to 13.48 min, SD±2.36 min) for the app-based briefing. Concerning technical aspects, patients asked two questions during the app-based briefing; no questions arose during the paper-based briefing. Six patients preferred electronic briefing and four patients, the paperbased form. No patient preferred the electronic form with additional multimedial information. Eight participants did not mind which briefing version was used; two participants did not express their preference at all. Our experiences showed that electronic briefing using an iPad is feasible and has the potential to become a user-friendly alternative to the conventional paper-based approach. Owing to the broad range of the results, a follow-up study will seek to determine the influencing factors on processing time and other potential questions.