Structured Reports and Radiology Residents: Friends or Foes?

Burns, Judah; Catanzano, Tara; Schaefer, Pamela W.; Agarwal, Vikas; Kim, Derek; Goiffon, R; Jordan, Sheryl G.

doi:10.1016/j.acra.2020.10.014

Cited by 17 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The ability to extract important information from under the same headers provides the surgeons the ability to comprehend the reports in a much more timely fashion and the radiologist reporting a follow-up study the ability to quickly address the pertinent issues raised on the previous study. One argument commonly made against structured reports is reduced productivity for radiologists related to the time spent preparing the report; as our study indicates, perhaps this potential loss in productivity in report preparation can be offset by reduced time spent in follow-up consultations with referring physicians and surgeons [34,44,46,47]. A hybrid report that includes the key PDAC descriptors in a structured format and the rest of the information not relevant to disease staging in free-text format may also be help allay concerns regarding reduced reporting efficiency of the radiologists.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 73%

“…Our results indicate that when the same information from free-text PDAC reports was presented in a template format with a modular organization and labeled subheadings, surgeons rated these structured reports higher on a 5-point Likert scale with improved convenience of information extraction, surgical planning ability, and extent to which the referring physician's key question was answered and reduced need for further radiologist consultation. Thus, the change in format alone from freetext to structured, without changes in report content or Structured reports in radiology offer many benefits, including improved completeness, interpretation, and quality of reports, and facilitate efficient, accurate, and consistent communications between radiologists and other physicians involved in the patient care, particularly when using disease-specific templates, such as the PDAC staging template developed by Al-Hawary et al used in our study [30,33,34]. However, the use of structured reporting is limited by factors such as radiologists' resistance to change from free-text prose-reporting styles, perceived changes in productivity, and potentially non-optimal use in disease settings involving multiple complex abnormalities [34].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus, the change in format alone from freetext to structured, without changes in report content or Structured reports in radiology offer many benefits, including improved completeness, interpretation, and quality of reports, and facilitate efficient, accurate, and consistent communications between radiologists and other physicians involved in the patient care, particularly when using disease-specific templates, such as the PDAC staging template developed by Al-Hawary et al used in our study [30,33,34]. However, the use of structured reporting is limited by factors such as radiologists' resistance to change from free-text prose-reporting styles, perceived changes in productivity, and potentially non-optimal use in disease settings involving multiple complex abnormalities [34]. Many prior studies found significantly improved report quality, user satisfaction, and interpretation time while some did not see improvement and even noted worsened clarity of reports [10-29, 35, 36].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Structured CT reporting of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: impact on completeness of information and interdisciplinary communication for surgical planning

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose With the rise in popularity of structured reports in radiology, we sought to evaluate whether free-text CT reports on pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) staging at our institute met published guidelines and assess feedback of pancreatic surgeons comparing free-text and structured report styles with the same information content. Methods We retrospectively evaluated 298 free-text preoperative CT reports from 2015 to 2017 for the inclusion of key tumor descriptors. Two surgeons independently evaluated 50 free-text reports followed by evaluation of the same reports in a structured format using a 7-question survey to assess the usefulness and ease of information extraction. Fisher's exact test and Chi-square test for independence were utilized for categorical responses and an independent samples t test for comparing mean ratings of report quality as rated on a 5-point Likert scale. ResultsThe most commonly included descriptors in free-text reports were tumor location (99%), liver lesions (97%), and suspicious lymph nodes (97%). The most commonly excluded descriptors were variant arterial anatomy and peritoneal/ omental nodularity, which were present in only 23% and 42% of the reports, respectively. For vascular involvement, a mention of the presence or absence of perivascular disease with the main portal vein was most commonly included (87%). Both surgeons' rating of overall report quality was significantly higher for structured reports (p < 0.001). ConclusionOur results indicate that free-text reports may not include key descriptors for staging PDAC. Surgeons rated structured reports that presented the same information as free-text reports but in a template format superior for guiding clinical management, convenience of use, and overall report quality.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 73%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Structured CT reporting of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: impact on completeness of information and interdisciplinary communication for surgical planning

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although barium swallow examinations have not been previously studied for this purpose, other groups have demonstrated increased referring provider satisfaction with structured reporting [9]. Structured reporting has also been demonstrated to help residents develop an organized search and reporting pattern to include key pertinent positive and negative findings [10]. For residents currently in training, gastrointestinal fluoroscopy may not be prioritized and residents may be unfamiliar with important findings on these examinations without a structured report to guide them.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing the Impact of Structured Reports for Fluoroscopic Double-Contrast Barium Esophagrams

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fluoroscopic barium swallow examinations are a commonly performed radiologic study in the evaluation of dysphagia. These studies remain essential in the diagnostic work-up despite the increasing utilization of endoscopy, but current residents are often less experienced with fluoroscopy. Structured reporting has been demonstrated to improve comprehensiveness of reports in multiple settings, but has not been evaluated for barium swallow examinations. A retrospective review identified patients who underwent barium swallow examinations pre-structured reporting in 2017 and followed a multidisciplinary proposal for and adoption of an optional structured report in 2020. Reports were assessed for comprehensiveness by evaluating presence/ absence each element (total of 10 elements). Differences in report elements between groups and multiple subgroups was performed utilizing a Mann-Whitney U test. χ 2 tests were also utilized to evaluate inclusion of each individual element of the report. A total of 487 reports from 2020 and 757 reports from 2017 were analyzed. Certain elements showed substantial differences in reporting, with greater than 90% of structured reports including them, but much lower numbers including them in non-structured reports from 2017 and 2020. Reports generated in 2020 had a statistically significant increase in report elements included when compared to 2017 (p < 0.01). This statistically significant increase was also observed in comparison of structured reports and non-structured reports from either period (p < 0.01). Adoption of structured reporting for fluoroscopic barium swallow examinations led to significant increase in report comprehensiveness and should be considered after a multidisciplinary approach to development.

show abstract

“…This is surprising because the literature suggests that training with structured reports offers benefits for junior radiologists as they develop search patterns and learn to communicate important findings. 4 The report development has generally been undertaken by individual radiologists with some departments a broader approach. Like in the surveys of academic radiology departments, 11 content was most frequently from published literature, rather than public template libraries (including RadReport), or reports native to RIS/PACS.…”

Section: Individual and Practice With Structured Reportingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Structured Reporting in Radiology: what do radiologists think and does RANZCR have a role in implementation

Pool

Ferris

Siwach³

et al. 2022

J Med Imag Rad Onc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction:The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists (RANZCR) established a working group to explore how the college should engage with the future development of structured radiology reporting in our region, particularly in the context of a broader move to digital healthcare. Phase 1 of the project surveyed college members and affiliated interest groups about how they are using structured reporting currently and might like it to evolve. Methods: Member and interest group questionnaires were based on previously published studies and posted to the Survey Monkey platform. Responses were analysed descriptively. Results: There were 114 members and 58 affiliated group responses. There is clearest support for RANZCR developing guidelines around structured report quality, for improvements in report content, particularly tailoring to clinical context and study parameters, and for improved integration of structured reporting and RIS/PACS systems. Conclusions: Phase 2 of the structured reporting working group project will aim to develop guidelines for structured report quality and processes through which RANZCR can implement them.

show abstract

Structured Reports and Radiology Residents: Friends or Foes?

Cited by 17 publications

References 26 publications

Structured CT reporting of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: impact on completeness of information and interdisciplinary communication for surgical planning

Structured CT reporting of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: impact on completeness of information and interdisciplinary communication for surgical planning

Assessing the Impact of Structured Reports for Fluoroscopic Double-Contrast Barium Esophagrams

Structured Reporting in Radiology: what do radiologists think and does RANZCR have a role in implementation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About