Literature DB >> 22997377

Reviewing imaging examination results with a radiologist immediately after study completion: patient preferences and assessment of feasibility in an academic department.

Jay Pahade1, Corey Couto, Roger B Davis, Payal Patel, Bettina Siewert, Max P Rosen.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess patient preferences about receiving radiology results and reviewing the images and findings directly with a radiologist after completion of an examination. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A prospective survey of English-speaking outpatients undergoing either nononcologic CT of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis or nonobstetric ultrasound examinations was completed between December 2010 and June 2011. Responses to survey items such as preferences regarding communication of results, knowledge of a radiologist, and anxiety level before and after radiologist-patient consultation were recorded. The average wait time between the end of the imaging examination and the consultation and the duration of consultation were documented.
RESULTS: Eighty-six patients (43 men, 43 women; mean age, 52 years) underwent 37 CT and 49 ultrasound examinations). Forty-eight patients (56%) identified a radiologist as a physician who interprets images. Before imaging, 70 patients (81%) preferred hearing results from both the ordering provider and the radiologist. This percentage increased to 78 (91%) after consultation (p=0.03). Before consultation, 84 of the 86 patients (98%) indicated they would be comfortable hearing normal results or abnormal results from the person interpreting the examination; the number increased to 85 (99%) after consultation. Eighty-five patients (99%) agreed or strongly agreed that reviewing their examination findings with a radiologist was helpful. Eighty-four patients (98%) indicated they wanted the option of reviewing or always wanted to review future examination findings with a radiologist. After consultation, anxiety decreased in 41 patients (48%), increased in 13 (15%), and was unchanged in 32 (37%) (p=0.0001). The average wait for consultation and the duration of consultation were 9.9 and 10.4 minutes for CT and 1.2 and 7.1 minutes for ultrasound.
CONCLUSION: Patients prefer hearing examination results from both their ordering provider and the interpreting radiologist. Most patients find radiologist consultation beneficial. Patients are comfortable hearing results from the radiologist, with most displaying decreased anxiety after consultation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22997377      PMCID: PMC3786865          DOI: 10.2214/AJR.11.8064

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   3.959


  26 in total

1.  The invisible radiologist.

Authors:  Gary M Glazer; Julie A Ruiz-Wibbelsmann
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 2.  CT colonography reporting and data system: a consensus proposal.

Authors:  Michael E Zalis; Matthew A Barish; J Richard Choi; Abraham H Dachman; Helen M Fenlon; Joseph T Ferrucci; Seth N Glick; Andrea Laghi; Michael Macari; Elizabeth G McFarland; Martina M Morrin; Perry J Pickhardt; Jorge Soto; Judy Yee
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Radiologist-patient contact: a different perspective.

Authors:  Ernest J Camponovo
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 5.532

4.  The radiology report of the future.

Authors:  Ferris M Hall
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2009-05       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Face of Radiology campaign.

Authors:  Harvey L Neiman
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2009-05       Impact factor: 3.173

Review 6.  Visual feedback of individuals' medical imaging results for changing health behaviour.

Authors:  Gareth J Hollands; Matthew Hankins; Theresa M Marteau
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2010-01-20

7.  Important imaging finding e-mail alert system: experience after 3 years of implementation.

Authors:  Hani H Abujudeh; Rathachai Kaewlai; Garry Choy; Dianne G Whelton; Daniel I Rosenthal
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2009-07-31       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Disclosure of imaging findings to patients directly by radiologists: survey of patients' preferences.

Authors:  M H Schreiber; M Leonard; C Y Rieniets
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1995-08       Impact factor: 3.959

9.  Women's attitudes about receiving mammographic results directly from radiologists.

Authors:  S Liu; L W Bassett; J Sayre
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1994-12       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  Communication problems after mammographic screening.

Authors:  C L Robertson; D B Kopans
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1989-08       Impact factor: 11.105

View more
  11 in total

1.  Direct communication between radiologists and patients following imaging examinations. Should radiologists rethink their patient care?

Authors:  Andreas Gutzeit; Regine Heiland; Sonja Sudarski; Johannes M Froehlich; Klaus Hergan; Matthias Meissnitzer; Sebastian Kos; Peter Bertke; Orpheus Kolokythas; Dow M Koh
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-06-25       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Radiologist, obstetric patient, and emergency department provider survey: radiologist-patient interaction in the emergency department setting.

Authors:  David B Erlichman; Marjorie W Stein; Amanda Weiss; Fernanda Mazzariol
Journal:  Emerg Radiol       Date:  2016-03-10

3.  Communicating with patients in the age of online portals-challenges and opportunities on the horizon for radiologists.

Authors:  Christoph D Becker; Elmar Kotter
Journal:  Insights Imaging       Date:  2022-05-04

4.  CONSUMER PREFERENCES FOR SCANNING MODALITY TO DIAGNOSE FOCAL LIVER LESIONS.

Authors:  Jennifer Whitty; Alexandra Filby; Adam B Smith; Louise M Carr
Journal:  Int J Technol Assess Health Care       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 2.188

Review 5.  Radiology Consultation in the Era of Precision Oncology: A Review of Consultation Models and Services in the Tertiary Setting.

Authors:  Pamela J DiPiro; Katherine M Krajewski; Angela A Giardino; Marta Braschi-Amirfarzan; Nikhil H Ramaiya
Journal:  Korean J Radiol       Date:  2017-01-05       Impact factor: 3.500

6.  Communicating echocardiography results to patients: a future role for the clinical scientist?

Authors:  Jenna Smith; Sarah Waters; Brian Campbell; John Chambers
Journal:  Echo Res Pract       Date:  2017-08-16

7.  Systematic review on women's values and preferences concerning breast cancer screening and diagnostic services.

Authors:  Alexander G Mathioudakis; Minna Salakari; Liisa Pylkkanen; Zuleika Saz-Parkinson; Anke Bramesfeld; Silvia Deandrea; Donata Lerda; Luciana Neamtiu; Hector Pardo-Hernandez; Ivan Solà; Pablo Alonso-Coello
Journal:  Psychooncology       Date:  2019-03-24       Impact factor: 3.894

8.  "I was seen by a radiologist, but unfortunately I can't remember the name and I still have questions. What should I do?" Radiologists should give thoughts to improve service professionalism and patient esteem.

Authors:  Andreas Gutzeit; Arne Fischmann; Rosemarie Forstner; Romana Goette; Bernhard Herzog; Claudia Kurtz; Chantal Hebler; Andrea Ladinger; Johannes M Froehlich; Janusch Blautzik; Orpheus Kolokythas; Simon Matoori; Sebastian Kos; Carolin Reischauer; Hubert Schefer; Peter Dubsky; Simon Peter Gampenrieder; Klaus Hergan; Wolfgang Gaissmaier; Dow-Mu Koh; Matthias Meissnitzer
Journal:  Cancer Imaging       Date:  2020-02-13       Impact factor: 3.909

9.  What radiologists need to know about patients' expectations: P.A.T.I.E.N.T.S C.A.R.E.R.S A.I.M.S.

Authors: 
Journal:  Insights Imaging       Date:  2022-03-22

10.  Immediate reporting of chest X-rays referred from general practice by reporting radiographers: a single centre feasibility study.

Authors:  N Woznitza; K Piper; S Rowe; A Bhowmik
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  2017-12-12       Impact factor: 2.350

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.