Radiology Reports: What YOU Think You’re Saying and What THEY Think You’re Saying

Lee, Bonmyong; Whitehead, Matthew T.

doi:10.1067/j.cpradiol.2016.11.005

Cited by 65 publications

(47 citation statements)

References 60 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Quality limitations are commonly described using a range of non‐standard phrases like ‘degraded’, ‘obscured’ and ‘non‐diagnostic’. Unfortunately, radiologists and non‐radiologists interpret these expressions variably and associate them with markedly different levels of diagnostic confidence . The revised RANZCR guidelines address these concerns by recommending that radiologists should specify how any quality issue impacts on interpretation and whether additional measures are recommended to improve the diagnostic outcome…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…So‐called uncertainty modifiers like ‘suspected’ or ‘raises the possibility’ have a negative impact on reader understanding and clinical management. These expressions are interpreted variably by readers of all specialities, and by radiologists as a group compared with both clinicians and patients . Early studies found significant associations between such statements of low confidence and diagnostic errors, as well as poorer reader agreement about the meaning of reports .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

New RANZCR clinical radiology written report guidelines

Pool

Siemienowicz

2018

J Med Imag Rad Onc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists (RANZCR) Radiology Written Report Guideline was first issued in 2011. A survey-based consultation of clinical radiology members of the college in 2015 found that the vast majority of 235 respondents supported all components of the guideline. Since the original guideline was developed, considerable new research has been published about radiology reporting, particularly regarding structured/ template reports. In 2016/17 a RANZCR working group used the consultation results, stakeholder feedback and recent research to develop revised guidelines. This article outlines the consultation survey results and guideline revision process as well as some of the supporting evidence from the literature.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

New RANZCR clinical radiology written report guidelines

Pool

Siemienowicz

2018

J Med Imag Rad Onc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, 28% of clinicians and 26% of radiologists thought it meaningless, hedging or an attempt to shift responsibility to clinicians. The authors describe “CCR” as one of the most contentious phrases to appear in radiology reports and suggest its elimination [ 17 ].…”

Section: Hedgingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Radiology reporting—from Hemingway to HAL?

Brady

2018

Insights Imaging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The job of the diagnostic radiologist is two-fold: identifying and interpreting the information available from diagnostic imaging studies and communicating that interpretation meaningfully to the referring clinician. However skilled our interpretive abilities, our patients are not well served if we fail to convey our conclusions effectively. Despite the central importance of communication skills to the work of radiologists, trainees rarely receive significant formal training in reporting skills, and much of the training given simply reflects the trainer’s personal preferences. Studies have shown a preference among referrers for reports in a structured form, with findings given in a standard manner, followed by a conclusion. The technical competence to incorporate structured report templates into PACS/RIS systems is growing, "...and radiology societies (including the European Society of Radiology (ESR)) are active in producing and validating templates for a wide range of modalities and clinical circumstances. While some radiologists may prefer prose format reports, and much literature has been produced addressing “dos and don’ts” for such prose reports, it seems likely that structured reporting will become the norm in the near future. Benefits will include homogenisation and standardisation of reports, certainty that significant information has not been omitted, and capacity for data-mining of structured reports for research and teaching purposes.Teaching Points • The radiologist’s job includes interpretation of imaging studies AND communication. • Traditionally, communication has taken the form of a prose report. • Referrers have been shown to prefer reports in a structured format. • Structured reports have many advantages over traditional prose reports. • It is likely that structured reports represent the future standard.

show abstract

“…Due to their unstructured nature and the fact that every reporting radiologist is free to use his or her individual vocabulary and style, conventional reports can add to the complexity of communication between radiologists and referring clinicians. Although an individual radiologist might be consistent in the terms he uses, the same is not true for radiologists among each other, which can lead to significant confusion on the referrer's side …”

Section: Clinician's Preferences and Communicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although an individual radiologist might be consistent in the terms he uses, the same is not true for radiologists among each other, which can lead to significant confusion on the referrer's side. 8,9 Besides general preference, multiple studies were able to show that important items that might be relevant for a patient's further clinical management are missing more often in free-text reports when compared to structured reports. This has been shown for various examples, mostly for oncological settings.…”

Section: Clinician's Preferences and Communicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Structured radiology reporting on an institutional level—benefit or new administrative burden?

Santos

Kotter

2018

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Significant technical advances have been made in radiology since the first discovery of X-rays. Diagnostic techniques have become more and more complex, workflows have been digitized, and data production has increased exponentially. However, the radiology report as the main method for communicating examination results has largely remained unchanged. Growing evidence supports that more structured radiology reports offer various benefits over conventional narrative reports. Various efforts have been made to further develop and promote structured reporting. However, regardless of the potential benefits, structured reporting has still not seen widespread implementation into the clinical routine. With recent technical advances, especially new research topics such as big data and machine learning, structured reporting could prove essential for the future of radiology. New interoperable solutions are needed to facilitate the implementation of template-based structured reporting into the clinical routine.

show abstract

Radiology Reports: What YOU Think You’re Saying and What THEY Think You’re Saying

Cited by 65 publications

References 60 publications

New RANZCR clinical radiology written report guidelines

New RANZCR clinical radiology written report guidelines

Radiology reporting—from Hemingway to HAL?

Structured radiology reporting on an institutional level—benefit or new administrative burden?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About