Strategies for Radiology Reporting and Communication. Part 1: Challenges and Heightened Expectations

Reiner, Bruce I.

doi:10.1007/s10278-013-9615-6

Cited by 19 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Referring physicians base patient care and management decisions on the results of nuclear medicine examinations. Therefore, reports must be timely and communicate the results accurately and consistently (26)(27)(28).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nuclear Medicine Technologists’ Perception and Current Assessment of Quality: A Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Technologist Section Survey

Mann

Farrell²,

Williams

et al. 2017

J. Nucl. Med. Technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

CE credit: For CE credit, you can access the test for this article, as well as additional JNMT CE tests, online at https://www.snmmilearningcenter.org. Complete the test online no later than June 2020. Your online test will be scored immediately. You may make 3 attempts to pass the test and must answer 80% of the questions correctly to receive 1.0 CEH (Continuing Education Hour) credit. SNMMI members will have their CEH credit added to their VOICE transcript automatically; nonmembers will be able to print out a CE certificate upon successfully completing the test. The online test is free to SNMMI members; nonmembers must pay $15.00 by credit card when logging onto the website to take the test.In 2015, the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Technologist Section (SNMMI-TS) launched a multiyear quality initiative to help prepare the technologist workforce for an evidence-based health-care delivery system that focuses on quality. To best implement the quality strategy, the SNMMI-TS first surveyed technologists to ascertain their perception of quality and current measurement of quality indicators. Methods: An internet survey was sent to 27,989 e-mail contacts. Questions related to demographic data, perceptions of quality, quality measurement, and opinions on the minimum level of education are discussed in this article. Results: A total of 4,007 (14.3%) responses were received. When asked to list 3 words or phrases that represent quality, there were a plethora of different responses. The top 3 responses were image quality, quality control, and technologist education or competency. Surveying patient satisfaction was the most common quality measure (80.9%), followed by evaluation of image quality (78.2%). Evaluation of image quality (90.3%) and equipment functionality (89.4%) were considered the most effective measures. Technologists' differentiation between quality, quality improvement, quality control, quality assurance, and quality assessment seemed ambiguous. Respondents were confident in their ability to assess and improve quality at their workplace (91.9%) and agreed their colleagues were committed to delivering quality work. Of note, 70.7% of respondents believed that quality is directly related to the technologist's level of education. Correspondingly, respondents felt there should be a minimum level of education (99.5%) and that certification or registry should be required (74.4%). Most respondents (59.6%) felt that a Bachelor's degree should be the minimum level of education, followed by an Associate's degree (40.4%). Conclusion: To best help nuclear medicine technologists provide quality care, the SNMMI-TS queried technologists to discern perceptions of quality in nuclear medicine. The results show that technologists believe image quality and quality control are the most important determinants. Most respondents felt that quality is directly related to the level of education of the technologist acquiring the scan. However, the responses obtained also demonstrated variation in perception of what ...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nuclear Medicine Technologists’ Perception and Current Assessment of Quality: A Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Technologist Section Survey

Mann

Farrell²,

Williams

et al. 2017

J. Nucl. Med. Technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the current model of radiology service provision, where contact between referrer and radiologist is diminishing [ 24 , 25 ], and increased use of off-site reporting may mean the two are completely unknown to one another, it is often impossible for this trust and experience to develop. Referrer A may have no idea what subtle point Radiologist B is trying to convey by the use of particular language.…”

Section: What the Referrer (And The Radiologist) Needs And Wantsmentioning

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

“…"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion it has taken place" attrib. George Bernard Shaw 28 .…”

Section: Failing To Spot Complications Of Cancer- "Palliative Sweep"mentioning

confidence: 99%

Minimising the impact of errors in the interpretation of CT images for surveillance and evaluation of therapy in cancer

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Radiological error is inevitable and usually multifactorial. Error can be secondary to radiologist specific causes, including cognitive and perceptive errors or ambiguity of report, or system related causes, including inadequate, misleading or incorrect clinical information, poor imaging technique, excessive workload and poor working conditions.In this paper, we discuss a systematic approach to reduce errors in oncological radiology reporting, thus reducing risk to the patient. Rather than attempt to discuss all types of error we concentrate on the most important and commonly occurring errors that we have encountered over 20 years of practice, based on a weekly discrepancy reviews of our practice and independent reviews of clinical and research imaging from other institutions. This review focuses on CT scan reporting for staging, surveillance and response assessment of cancer patients, but the messages apply to all imaging modalities.

show abstract

Strategies for Radiology Reporting and Communication. Part 1: Challenges and Heightened Expectations

Cited by 19 publications

References 15 publications

Nuclear Medicine Technologists’ Perception and Current Assessment of Quality: A Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Technologist Section Survey

Nuclear Medicine Technologists’ Perception and Current Assessment of Quality: A Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Technologist Section Survey

Radiology reporting—from Hemingway to HAL?

Minimising the impact of errors in the interpretation of CT images for surveillance and evaluation of therapy in cancer

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About