Adam R Travis1, Merlijn Sevenster2, Rajiv Ganesh3, Joost F Peters4, Paul J Chang5. 1. Department of Radiology, University of Chicago Medical Center, 5841 S Maryland Ave, MC 2026, Chicago, IL 60637. Electronic address: adam.travis.md@gmail.com. 2. Clinical Informatics, Philips Research North America, Briarcliff, New York. 3. Department of Radiology, University of Chicago Medical Center, 5841 S Maryland Ave, MC 2026, Chicago, IL 60637. 4. PCCI-EICI R&D, Philips Healthcare, Eindhoven, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Radiology, University of Chicago School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois.
Abstract
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine whether key radiology report "consumers" in our institution prefer structured measurement reporting in a dedicated report section over the current practice of embedding measurements throughout the "Findings" section, given the availability of new tools for quantitative imaging interpretation that enable automated structured reporting of measurement data. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Oncologic clinicians and radiologists at our institution were surveyed regarding their preferences for a standard report versus three reports each having uniquely formatted dedicated "Measurements" sections and regarding their impressions of various characteristics of report quality demonstrated by these reports. The online survey was completed by 25 radiologists, 16 oncologists, and 17 oncology nurses and research assistants (registrars). RESULTS: Aggregation of respondents' preferences by group into single orderings using the Kemeny-Young method revealed that both oncology groups preferred all proposed reports to the standard report but that radiologists only preferred two of the proposed reports to the standard report. All preferences for proposed reports in the two oncology groups were statistically significant based on Wilcoxon tests, but the preference for only one of the proposed reports was significant for radiologists. Additional results suggest that these preferences are driven by respondent favor for the readability of and confidence conveyed by the proposed reports compared to the standard report. CONCLUSIONS: Oncologic clinicians responding to our survey preferred communication of lesion measurements in a separate report section to the current practice of embedding measurements throughout the "Findings" section, based on their assessments of reports containing simulated measurement sections assembled from a single sample report using standardized formatting.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine whether key radiology report "consumers" in our institution prefer structured measurement reporting in a dedicated report section over the current practice of embedding measurements throughout the "Findings" section, given the availability of new tools for quantitative imaging interpretation that enable automated structured reporting of measurement data. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Oncologic clinicians and radiologists at our institution were surveyed regarding their preferences for a standard report versus three reports each having uniquely formatted dedicated "Measurements" sections and regarding their impressions of various characteristics of report quality demonstrated by these reports. The online survey was completed by 25 radiologists, 16 oncologists, and 17 oncology nurses and research assistants (registrars). RESULTS: Aggregation of respondents' preferences by group into single orderings using the Kemeny-Young method revealed that both oncology groups preferred all proposed reports to the standard report but that radiologists only preferred two of the proposed reports to the standard report. All preferences for proposed reports in the two oncology groups were statistically significant based on Wilcoxon tests, but the preference for only one of the proposed reports was significant for radiologists. Additional results suggest that these preferences are driven by respondent favor for the readability of and confidence conveyed by the proposed reports compared to the standard report. CONCLUSIONS: Oncologic clinicians responding to our survey preferred communication of lesion measurements in a separate report section to the current practice of embedding measurements throughout the "Findings" section, based on their assessments of reports containing simulated measurement sections assembled from a single sample report using standardized formatting.
Authors: Les R Folio; Chelsye J Nelson; Menashe Benjamin; Ayelet Ran; Guy Engelhard; David A Bluemke Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Richard G Abramson; Kirsteen R Burton; John-Paul J Yu; Ernest M Scalzetti; Thomas E Yankeelov; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Mishal Mendiratta-Lala; Brian J Bartholmai; Dhakshinamoorthy Ganeshan; Leon Lenchik; Rathan M Subramaniam Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 3.173