Ansgar Espeland1, Anders Baerheim. 1. Department of Radiology, Haukeland University Hospital and Section for Radiology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway. ansgar.espeland@helse-bergen.no
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify and describe general practitioners' (GPs') views on radiology reports, using plain radiography for back pain as the case. DESIGN: Qualitative study with three focus-group interviews analysed using Giorgi's method as modified by Malterud. SETTING: Southern Norway. SUBJECTS: Five female and eight male GPs aged 32-57 years who had practised for 3-15 years and were from 11 different practices. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Descriptions of GPs' views. RESULTS: GPs wanted radiology reports to indicate more clearly the meaning of radiological terminology, the likelihood of disease, the clinical relevance of the findings, and/or the need for further investigations. GPs stated that good referral information leads to better reports. CONCLUSION: These results can help to improve communication between radiologists and GPs. The issues identified in this study could be further investigated in studies that can quantify GPs' satisfaction with radiology reports in relation to characteristics of the GP, the radiologist, and the referral information.
OBJECTIVE: To identify and describe general practitioners' (GPs') views on radiology reports, using plain radiography for back pain as the case. DESIGN: Qualitative study with three focus-group interviews analysed using Giorgi's method as modified by Malterud. SETTING: Southern Norway. SUBJECTS: Five female and eight male GPs aged 32-57 years who had practised for 3-15 years and were from 11 different practices. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Descriptions of GPs' views. RESULTS: GPs wanted radiology reports to indicate more clearly the meaning of radiological terminology, the likelihood of disease, the clinical relevance of the findings, and/or the need for further investigations. GPs stated that good referral information leads to better reports. CONCLUSION: These results can help to improve communication between radiologists and GPs. The issues identified in this study could be further investigated in studies that can quantify GPs' satisfaction with radiology reports in relation to characteristics of the GP, the radiologist, and the referral information.
Authors: Ramin Khorasani; David W Bates; Susan Teeger; Jeffrey M Rothschild; Douglas F Adams; Steven E Seltzer Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Annette J Johnson; Jun Ying; J Shannon Swan; Linda S Williams; Kimberly E Applegate; Benjamin Littenberg Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Paul H H Houben; Ron A G Winkens; Trudy van der Weijden; Renee C R M Vossen; André J M Naus; Richard P T M Grol Journal: Scand J Prim Health Care Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 2.581
Authors: J L Witherow; H J Jenkins; J M Elliott; G H Ip; C G Maher; J S Magnussen; M J Hancock Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2022-02-24 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Sweekriti Sharma; Adrian C Traeger; Ben Reed; Melanie Hamilton; Denise A O'Connor; Tammy C Hoffmann; Carissa Bonner; Rachelle Buchbinder; Chris G Maher Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-08-23 Impact factor: 2.692