The surveys emphasize the role of the radiologist as a well-informed medical imaging specialist; however, some of the preferences of radiologists and clinicians diverge fundamentally from the way radiology is practiced and taught today, and implementing these preferences may have far-reaching consequences.

PurposeTo determine why, despite growing evidence that radiologists and referring physicians prefer structured reporting (SR) to free text (FT) reporting, SR has not been widely adopted in most radiology departments.MethodsA focus group was formed consisting of 11 radiology professionals from eight countries. Eight topics were submitted for discussion. The meeting was videotaped, transcribed, and analyzed according to the principles of qualitative healthcare research.ResultsPerceived advantages of SR were facilitation of research, easy comparison, discouragement of ambiguous reports, embedded links to images, highlighting important findings, not having to dictate text nobody will read, and automatic translation of teleradiology reports. Being compelled to report within a rigid frame was judged unacceptable. Personal convictions appeared to have high emotional value. It was felt that other healthcare stakeholders would impose SR without regard to what radiologists thought of it. If the industry were to provide ready-made templates for selected examinations, most radiologists would use them.ConclusionIf radiologists can be convinced of the advantages of SR and the risks associated with failing to participate actively in its implementation, they will take a positive stand. The industry should propose technology allowing SR without compromising accuracy, completeness, workflows, and cost-benefit balance.Main Messages• Structured reporting offers radiologists opportunities to improve their service to other stakeholders.• If radiologists can be convinced of the advantages of structured reporting, they may become early adopters.• The healthcare industry should propose technology allowing structured reporting.• Structured reporting will fail if it compromises accuracy, completeness, workflows or cost-benefit balance.

Analysis of a serum sample, and whole blood on citrate and EDTA. We compare the results to those of December 20th. We observe a slight rise in blood glucose level, but the value is still within normal limits. Erythrocytes sedimentate at a rather fair rate of 25 millimetres per hour, which can be considered just mildly abnormal, taking into account the patient’s gender and age. We notice serum creatinine is 140 micromoles per litre, which corresponds, according to Cockroft-Gault, to a creatinine clearance of 67 millilitres per minute. The other chemical constituents and haematological evaluations are unremarkable, except for a rise in the number of neutrophils, which has tripled in comparison with the last examination.\ud \ud Impression\ud \ud Biochemically, we see little evolution in this slightly overweight, middle-aged patient with a history of arterial hypertension, but there is a possible suspicion of an acute infection. These results need to be correlated to the clinical presentation.\ud Does this report look familiar? It is unlikely that you have ever received a similar one from your clinical biochemist. Results of biochemical and haematological tests are nearly always presented in a neat, tabular format, with some space for results that cannot be quantified, and for expert comment. In addition, many hospital information systems allow referring clinicians to represent consecutive results graphically, which can help to improve insight into the course of the disease