Institutional Implementation of a Structured Reporting System: Our Experience with the Brain Tumor Reporting and Data System

Gore, Ashwani; Hoch, M.; Shu, Hui‐Kuo G.; Olson, Jeffrey J.; Voloschin, Alfredo; Weinberg, Brent D.

doi:10.1016/j.acra.2018.12.023

Cited by 29 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The paucity of research on outer setting factors has been explained in part by the lack of quantitative measurements due to difficulty operationalizing and isolating these as a unit of measurement [ 30 ]. However, qualitative research methods are also appropriate for understanding how outer setting factors shape implementation [ 32 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identifying and understanding the contextual factors that shaped mid-implementation outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic in organizations implementing mental health recovery innovations into services

Piat

Wainwright

Cherkas

et al. 2021

Implement Sci Commun

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Seven housing and health services organizations were guided through a process of translating Chapter Six of the Canadian Guidelines for Recovery-Oriented Practice into a recovery-oriented innovation and plan for its implementation. At the time of the COVID-19 outbreak and lockdown measures, six of the seven organizations had begun implementing their chosen innovation (peer workers, wellness recovery action planning facilitator training, staff training and a family support group). This mid-implementation study used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to identify contextual factors that influenced organizations to continue or postpone implementation of recovery-oriented innovations in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods Twenty-seven semi-structured 45-min interviews were conducted between May and June 2020 (21 implementation team members and six providers of the innovation (trainers, facilitators, peer workers). Interview guides and analysis were based on the CFIR. Content analysis combined deductive and inductive approaches. Summaries of coded data were given ratings based on strength and valence of the construct’s impact on implementation. Ratings were visualized by mid-implementation outcome and recovery innovation to identify constructs which appear to distinguish between sites with a more or less favorable mid-implementation outcomes. Results Four mid-implementation outcomes were observed at this snapshot in time (from most to least positive): continued implementation with adaptation (one site), postponement with adaptation and estimated relaunch date (four sites), indefinite postponement with no decision on relaunch date (one site), and no implementation of innovation yet (one site). Two constructs had either a negative influence (external policies and incentives—renamed COVID-19-related external policy for this study) or a positive influence (leadership engagement), regardless of implementation outcome. Four factors appeared to distinguish between more or less positive mid-implementation outcome: adaptability, implementation climate and relative priority, available resources, and formally appointed internal implementation leaders (renamed “engaging implementation teams during the COVID-19 pandemic” for this study). Conclusions The COVID-19 pandemic is an unprecedented outer setting factor. Studies that use the CFIR at the mid-implementation stage are rare, as are studies focusing on the outer setting. Through robust qualitative analysis, we identify the key factors that shaped the course of implementation of recovery innovations over this turbulent time.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identifying and understanding the contextual factors that shaped mid-implementation outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic in organizations implementing mental health recovery innovations into services

Piat

Wainwright

Cherkas

et al. 2021

Implement Sci Commun

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Intracranial mass also had high IC reporting (92.9%), which may be important for tumor monitoring and treatment planning. 6 Most interesting, IC for intracranial mass was less likely to be in the impression; on a noncontrast head CT with probable advance imaging follow-up, IC of a mass may be less important than having the mass. The rate of IC reporting of pneumocephalus was only 71.4% and not significantly different from the rate for all findings, a concerning result given that pneumocephalus can be a potentially serious finding.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Clear and standardized radiographic terminology may decrease confusion and make comparison with prior examinations easier. 6,19 For our retrospective review, both structured and narrative reports were reviewed with no standardization of IC. Currently, our institution uses structured reports nearly exclusively, though IC is not included.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Structured radiology reports may result in improved understanding of radiographic findings and clinical utility compared with narrative reports. 2,6,[20][21][22] Furthermore, studies have shown that clinicians may prefer standardized reports to narrative find- ings. 6,20,21,23 In addition, important features are less likely to be missed on structured reports.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…2,6,[20][21][22] Furthermore, studies have shown that clinicians may prefer standardized reports to narrative find- ings. 6,20,21,23 In addition, important features are less likely to be missed on structured reports. 20,21 Given our findings of overall poor reporting of IC, the higher percentage of reporting with generalized IC statements, and the literature regarding structured reporting, we propose including IC as a part of the standardized radiology report.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Assessment of Explicitly Stated Interval Change on Noncontrast Head CT Radiology Reports

Braileanu

Crawford

Key

et al. 2019

AJNR Am J Neuroradiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Consistent and standardized reporting of interval change for certain diagnoses may improve the clinical utility of radiology reports. The purpose of this study was to assess explicitly stated interval change of various findings in noncontrast head CT reports. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review was performed on successive noncontrast head CT radiology reports from the first 2 weeks of January 2014. Reports with at least 1 prior comparison CT scan were included. Reports with normal examination findings and those that made comparison with only other types of examinations (eg, MR imaging) were excluded. Descriptive and subgroup statistical analyses were performed. RESULTS: In total, 200 patients with 230 reports and 979 radiographic findings were identified. The average interval between reports was 344.9 Ϯ 695.9 days (range, 0-3556 days). Interval change was mentioned 67.3% (n ϭ 659) of the time for all findings (n ϭ 979). Explicitly stated interval change was significantly associated with nonremote findings (P Ͻ .001) and generalized statements of interval change (P Ͻ .001). The proportion of interval change reported ranged from 95.3% of the time for hemorrhagic to 36.4% for soft-tissue/osseous categorizations. CONCLUSIONS: Interval change reporting was variable, mentioned for 67.3% of noncontrast head CT report findings with a prior comparison CT scan. Structured radiology reports may improve the consistent and clear reporting of interval change for certain findings.

show abstract

MRT-Befundung hirneigener Tumoren

Huckhagel

Riedel

2022

Radiologie

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Zusammenfassung Hintergrund und Ziel Eine strukturierte MRT-Befundung unter Verwendung konsensbasierter inhaltlicher Kategorien hat das Potenzial, die interdisziplinäre Kommunikation in der Neuroonkologie zu verbessern. Ziel dieser Studie war es daher, mittels einer bundesweiten Befragung von Mitgliedern medizinischer Fachgesellschaften mit neuroonkologischem Bezug die wesentlichen Befundungskategorien der Bildgebung hirneigener Tumoren aus klinischer Perspektive zu ermitteln. Material und Methoden Auf der Basis eines interdisziplinär entwickelten Katalogs von MRT-Befundungselementen wurde ein Online-Fragebogen erstellt. Im Anschluss wurden fachärztliche Mitglieder der Deutschen Gesellschaften für Neurochirurgie, Radioonkologie, Hämatologie und Medizinische Onkologie, Neurologie und Neuropathologie dazu eingeladen, die Items hinsichtlich ihrer klinischen Relevanz zu bewerten. Ergebnisse An der Umfrage nahmen insgesamt 171 Fachärzte aus dem Bundesgebiet teil (81 Neurochirurgen, 66 Strahlentherapeuten und 24 andere neuroonkologische Experten). Anzahl und anatomische Ausdehnung der Tumoren in einer kontrastmittelverstärkten T1- und 2‑D-T2-Sequenz (98,8 % vs. 97,1 %) sowie neu diagnostizierte Läsionen bei Folgeuntersuchungen (T1 + Kontrast 98,2 %; T2 94,7 %) wurden am häufigsten als essenziell betrachtet. Darüber hinaus beurteilten die Experten insbesondere die Beschreibung einer ependymalen und/oder leptomeningealen Tumordissemination (93,6 %) sowie Zeichen der Raumforderung inklusive Verschlusshydrozephalus und parenchymale Massenverschiebungen (jeweils > 75,0 %) als wesentlich. Eine standardmäßige Erwähnung von intratumoralen Verkalkungen, Hämorrhagien, Tumorgefäßarchitektur oder erweiterter Bildgebungsmethoden wie MR-Perfusion, Diffusion, Traktographie und Protonenspektroskopie bewertete lediglich eine Minderheit der Umfrageteilnehmer als praxisrelevant. Schlussfolgerung Ein zuweiserorientierter inhaltlicher Mindeststandard der magnetresonanztomographischen Hirntumordiagnostik sollte als klinisch relevante Kernelemente die exakte anatomische Ausbreitung der Raumforderung(en) inklusive ependymaler und meningealer Beteiligung sowie die einschlägigen Raumforderungszeichen enthalten.

show abstract

Institutional Implementation of a Structured Reporting System: Our Experience with the Brain Tumor Reporting and Data System

Cited by 29 publications

References 24 publications

Identifying and understanding the contextual factors that shaped mid-implementation outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic in organizations implementing mental health recovery innovations into services

Identifying and understanding the contextual factors that shaped mid-implementation outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic in organizations implementing mental health recovery innovations into services

Assessment of Explicitly Stated Interval Change on Noncontrast Head CT Radiology Reports

MRT-Befundung hirneigener Tumoren

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About