Gelareh Sadigh1, Timothy Hertweck2, Cristine Kao3, Paul Wood4, Danny Hughes5, Travis S Henry6, Richard Duszak7. 1. Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia. Electronic address: gsadigh@emory.edu. 2. IDR Medical GmbH, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. Carestream Health, Inc, Rochester, New York. 4. IDR Medical GmbH, Basel, Switzerland. 5. Harvey L. Neiman Health Policy Institute, Reston, Virginia; Department of Health Administration and Policy, George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia. 6. Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia. 7. Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia; Harvey L. Neiman Health Policy Institute, Reston, Virginia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate referring physicians' perceptions of multimedia-enhanced radiology reporting (MERR) as an alternative to traditional text-only radiology reporting. MERR supplements text-only reports by embedding user-friendly interactive hyperlinks to key images and graphically plotting target lesion size longitudinally over time. METHODS: Of 402 physicians responding to a web-based survey, 200 (50 each medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, neurosurgeons, and pulmonologists) practicing in the United States fulfilled criteria to complete an online survey with questions focusing on satisfaction with current text-only reports and the perceived value of image- and data-enriched reporting. RESULTS: The mean respondent age was 46 years, with a mean of 15 years in posttraining clinical practice (85% men; 47% from academic medical centers). Although 80% were satisfied with the format of their current text-only radiology reports, 80% believed that MERR would represent an improvement. The most commonly reported advantages of MERR were "improved understanding of radiology findings by correlating images to text reports" (86%) and "easier access to images while monitoring progression of a disease/condition" (79%). Of the 28% of physicians with concerns about MERR implementation, the most common were that it was "too time intensive" (53%) and "the clinic workflow does not allow itself to view reports in such a fashion" (42%). Physicians indicated a strong increased likelihood of preferentially referring patients to (80%) and recommending peers to (79%) facilities that offer MERR. CONCLUSION: Most specialist referring physicians believe that interactive image- and data-embedded MERR represents an improvement over current text-only radiology reporting. Compared with current report formatting, most would preferentially refer patients and peers to facilities offering more meaningful image- and graphically enriched reporting platforms.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate referring physicians' perceptions of multimedia-enhanced radiology reporting (MERR) as an alternative to traditional text-only radiology reporting. MERR supplements text-only reports by embedding user-friendly interactive hyperlinks to key images and graphically plotting target lesion size longitudinally over time. METHODS: Of 402 physicians responding to a web-based survey, 200 (50 each medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, neurosurgeons, and pulmonologists) practicing in the United States fulfilled criteria to complete an online survey with questions focusing on satisfaction with current text-only reports and the perceived value of image- and data-enriched reporting. RESULTS: The mean respondent age was 46 years, with a mean of 15 years in posttraining clinical practice (85% men; 47% from academic medical centers). Although 80% were satisfied with the format of their current text-only radiology reports, 80% believed that MERR would represent an improvement. The most commonly reported advantages of MERR were "improved understanding of radiology findings by correlating images to text reports" (86%) and "easier access to images while monitoring progression of a disease/condition" (79%). Of the 28% of physicians with concerns about MERR implementation, the most common were that it was "too time intensive" (53%) and "the clinic workflow does not allow itself to view reports in such a fashion" (42%). Physicians indicated a strong increased likelihood of preferentially referring patients to (80%) and recommending peers to (79%) facilities that offer MERR. CONCLUSION: Most specialist referring physicians believe that interactive image- and data-embedded MERR represents an improvement over current text-only radiology reporting. Compared with current report formatting, most would preferentially refer patients and peers to facilities offering more meaningful image- and graphically enriched reporting platforms.
Authors: Nikhil Goyal; Andrea B Apolo; Eliana D Berman; Mohammad Hadi Bagheri; Jason E Levine; John W Glod; Rosandra N Kaplan; Laura B Machado; Les R Folio Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 4.056
Authors: Mohammad Alarifi; Timothy Patrick; Abdulrahman Jabour; Min Wu; Jake Luo Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-05-22 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Seth J Berkowitz; David Kwan; Toby C Cornish; Elliot L Silver; Karen S Thullner; Alex Aisen; Marilyn M Bui; Shawn D Clark; David A Clunie; Monief Eid; Douglas J Hartman; Kinson Ho; Andrei Leontiev; Damien M Luviano; Peter E O'Toole; Anil V Parwani; Nielsen S Pereira; Veronica Rotemberg; David J Vining; Cree M Gaskin; Christopher J Roth; Les R Folio Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2022-08-12 Impact factor: 4.903
Authors: Christopher J Roth; David A Clunie; David J Vining; Seth J Berkowitz; Alejandro Berlin; Jean-Pierre Bissonnette; Shawn D Clark; Toby C Cornish; Monief Eid; Cree M Gaskin; Alexander K Goel; Genevieve C Jacobs; David Kwan; Damien M Luviano; Morgan P McBee; Kelly Miller; Abdul Moiz Hafiz; Ceferino Obcemea; Anil V Parwani; Veronica Rotemberg; Elliot L Silver; Erik S Storm; James E Tcheng; Karen S Thullner; Les R Folio Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2021-06-15 Impact factor: 4.056