Enhancing clinician and patient understanding of radiology reports: a scoping review of international guidelines

Abstract

Imaging reports are the primary method of communicating diagnostic imaging findings between the radiologist and the referring clinician. Guidelines produced by professional bodies provide guidance on content and format of imaging reports, but the extent to which they consider comprehensibility for referring clinicians and their patients is unclear. The objective of this review was to determine the extent to which radiology reporting guidelines consider comprehensibility of imaging reports for referring clinicians and patients. We performed a scoping review of English-language diagnostic imaging reporting guidelines. We searched electronic databases (OVID MEDLINE, Embase) and websites of radiological professional organisations to identify guidelines. The extent to which the guidelines recommended essential report features such as technical information, content, format and language, as well as features to enhance comprehensibility, such as lay language summaries, was recorded. Six guidelines from professional bodies representing radiologists from the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, Hong Kong, the UK and Europe were identified from the search. Inconsistencies exist between guidelines in their recommendations, and they rarely consider that patients may read the report. No guideline made recommendations about the reporting of results considering the clinical context, and none recommended features preferred by patients such as lay language summaries. This review identifies an opportunity for future radiology reporting guidelines to give greater consideration to referring clinician and patient preferences.

Unintended consequences: quantifying the benefits, iatrogenic harms and downstream cascade costs of musculoskeletal MRI in UK primary care

“…Education, incentives and behavioural 'nudges' within electronic ordering systems, may help, with limited impact. [95][96][97][98] While there is scope to improve radiology reporting, 99 benefit is mixed. 12 100 Educating on the low utility and potential harm of imaging, challenging beliefs and persuading that less-is-more, can be difficult, introducing back-fire and reactance effects.…”

Clinicians’ interpretation of ventilation/perfusion (V/Q) lung scan reports: Where are we today?

“…Radiology guidelines rarely consider preferences for reporting expressed by clinicians, and this may lead to confusion. [8 , 17] The terms ‘absent’ and ‘present’ are straightforward to understand, and it is likely that clinicians prefer the other terms because of linguistic preference rather than clarity of meaning. Clinicians may also prefer probabilities or direct descriptions of ‘scan is negative for PE’ or ‘scan is positive for PE’, as this is the reporting system that they have become accustomed to.…”

Artificial Intelligence to Improve Patient Understanding of Radiology Reports

“…The average reading level of reports may reflect the fact that the patient’s ability to understand these reports is often not considered [ 18 ]. A scoping review of English language diagnostic imaging reporting guidelines found that only two out of six international guidelines (The Royal College of Radiologists and the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists) explicitly note that imaging reports should consider the patient.…”