Evaluating the Referring Physician’s Clinical History and Indication as a Means for Communicating Chronic Conditions That Are Pertinent at the Point of Radiologic Interpretation

Abstract

The clinical history and indication (CHI) provided with a radiological examination are critical components of a quality interpretation by the radiologist. A patient's chronic conditions offer the context in which acute symptoms and findings can be interpreted more accurately. Seven pertinent (potentially diagnosis altering) chronic conditions, which are fairly prevalent at our institution, were selected. We analyze if and how in 140 CHIs there was mention of a patient's previously reported chronic condition and if and how the condition was subsequently described in the radiology report using a four-item scheme (Mention/Specialization, Generalization, Common comorbidity, No mention). In 40.7 % of CHIs, the condition was rated Mention/Specialization. Therefore, we reject our first hypothesis that the CHI is a reliable source for obtaining pertinent chronic conditions (≥90.0 %). Nononcological conditions were significantly more likely rated No mention in the CHI than oncological conditions (58.7 versus 8.3 %, P<0.0001). Stat cases were significantly more frequently No mention than non-stat cases (60.0 versus 31.3 %, P=0.0134). We accept our second hypothesis that the condition's rating in the CHI is significantly correlated with its rating of the final radiology report (χ 2 test, P<0.00001). Our study demonstrates an alarming lack of communication of pertinent medical information to the radiologist, which may negatively impact interpretation quality.Presenting automatically aggregated patient information to the radiologist may be a potential avenue for improving interpretation and adding value of the radiology department to the care chain.

Adding Value as Young Radiologists: Challenges and Opportunities, Part 2

“…Clinical history is a critical component of image interpretation, and lack thereof may negatively affect the quality of interpretation [22]. The clinical history for imaging studies is currently indicated by ICD-9-CM codes, which are required to obtain appropriate reimbursement.…”

Can Automated Retrieval of Data from Emergency Department Physician Notes Enhance the Imaging Order Entry Process?

“…Physicians may also enter incomplete or conflicting information, adversely impacting communication to radiologists, interpretation quality, and quality of patient care. 2,3 Although redundancies may potentially add reliability and safety in collaborative work, 4 reducing redundant data entry is a goal in efforts to improve usability, efficiency, accuracy, and safety in order entry and clinical decision support (CDS) tools. [5][6][7] Despite multiple data entry, in a survey of radiologists, 72% reported not receiving enough clinical information about patients, and 87% reported that more information could lead to a change in study interpretation.…”

Effect of Clinical History on Interpretation of Computed Tomography for Acute Stroke

“…Although they often receive vague or incomplete information, radiologists typically prefer more clinical information in order to focus on regions corresponding to given symptoms and to adjust their indices of suspicion. [4][5][6] However, it is also possible that providing information biases radiologists to overcall ambiguous findings or overlook findings elsewhere. Few data exist to guide practice in this common clinical scenario.…”