S M Powsner1, J Costa, R J Homer. 1. Department of Psychiatry and Center for Medical Informatics, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn., USA.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Text reports convey critical medical information from pathologists, radiologists, and subspecialty consultants. These reports must be clear and comprehensible to avoid medical errors. Pathologists have paid much attention to report completeness but have ignored the corresponding issue of report comprehension. This situation presents an increasingly serious potential problem. As laboratories are consolidated and as reports are disseminated in new ways (eg, via the World Wide Web), the target audience becomes more diverse and less likely to have any contact with pathologists beyond the written reports themselves. OBJECTIVE: To compare clinician comprehension with pathologist intent in written pathology reports. METHODS: Typical surgical pathology reports relevant to surgeons and covering a range of specimen complexity were taken from our hospital files. Questionnaires based on these cases were administered open-book-examination style to surgical attending physicians and trainees during surgical conferences at an academic medical center. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Scores from questionnaires. RESULTS: Surgeons misunderstood pathologists' reports 30% of the time. Surgical experience reduced but did not eliminate the problem. Streamlined report formatting exacerbated the problem. CONCLUSIONS: A communication gap exists between pathologists and surgeons. Familiarity with report format and clinical experience help reduce this gap. Paradoxically, stylistic improvements to report formatting can interfere with comprehension and increase the number of misunderstandings. Further investigation is required to reduce the number of misunderstandings and, thus, medical errors.
CONTEXT: Text reports convey critical medical information from pathologists, radiologists, and subspecialty consultants. These reports must be clear and comprehensible to avoid medical errors. Pathologists have paid much attention to report completeness but have ignored the corresponding issue of report comprehension. This situation presents an increasingly serious potential problem. As laboratories are consolidated and as reports are disseminated in new ways (eg, via the World Wide Web), the target audience becomes more diverse and less likely to have any contact with pathologists beyond the written reports themselves. OBJECTIVE: To compare clinician comprehension with pathologist intent in written pathology reports. METHODS: Typical surgical pathology reports relevant to surgeons and covering a range of specimen complexity were taken from our hospital files. Questionnaires based on these cases were administered open-book-examination style to surgical attending physicians and trainees during surgical conferences at an academic medical center. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Scores from questionnaires. RESULTS: Surgeons misunderstood pathologists' reports 30% of the time. Surgical experience reduced but did not eliminate the problem. Streamlined report formatting exacerbated the problem. CONCLUSIONS: A communication gap exists between pathologists and surgeons. Familiarity with report format and clinical experience help reduce this gap. Paradoxically, stylistic improvements to report formatting can interfere with comprehension and increase the number of misunderstandings. Further investigation is required to reduce the number of misunderstandings and, thus, medical errors.