Nabi Fatahi1, Ferid Krupic2, Mikael Hellström3. 1. Department of Radiology, The Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden. 2. Department of Orthopedics, The Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden. 3. Department of Radiology, The Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden. Electronic address: mikael.hellstrom@xray.gu.se.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective was to study radiologists' experiences of written and oral communication with referring clinicians, and its potential implications for decision making and patient care. METHODS: Focus group discussions with 12 radiologists were carried out. Content analysis was used for interpretation of the data. RESULTS: Radiologists reported many problems with the request forms: improper choice of imaging examinations and procedures, insufficient patient history/information, unclear clinical questions, lack of specific terms and unclear abbreviations on the request form. Radiologists also mentioned other difficulties: insufficient attention among participating clinicians during conferences, difficulties in reaching the referring clinicians by telephone, and communication difficulties in making priorities between patients. To overcome these problems, radiologists suggested increased contacts between radiologists and clinicians, and educational activities. CONCLUSION: A number of difficulties in oral and written communication were highlighted. The use of medical imaging may be optimized by joint discussions on indications and methodology and educational activities, such as lectures, seminars and conferences, directed to the medical community at large. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Improved communication between radiologists and referring clinicians should be encouraged to ensure diagnostic quality, correct patient prioritization and patient safety, and to avoid unnecessary delays and costs.
OBJECTIVE: The objective was to study radiologists' experiences of written and oral communication with referring clinicians, and its potential implications for decision making and patient care. METHODS: Focus group discussions with 12 radiologists were carried out. Content analysis was used for interpretation of the data. RESULTS: Radiologists reported many problems with the request forms: improper choice of imaging examinations and procedures, insufficientpatient history/information, unclear clinical questions, lack of specific terms and unclear abbreviations on the request form. Radiologists also mentioned other difficulties: insufficient attention among participating clinicians during conferences, difficulties in reaching the referring clinicians by telephone, and communication difficulties in making priorities between patients. To overcome these problems, radiologists suggested increased contacts between radiologists and clinicians, and educational activities. CONCLUSION: A number of difficulties in oral and written communication were highlighted. The use of medical imaging may be optimized by joint discussions on indications and methodology and educational activities, such as lectures, seminars and conferences, directed to the medical community at large. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Improved communication between radiologists and referring clinicians should be encouraged to ensure diagnostic quality, correct patient prioritization and patient safety, and to avoid unnecessary delays and costs.