Patricia C Silveira1, Ruth Dunne2, Nisha I Sainani3, Ronilda Lacson4, Stuart G Silverman3, Clare M Tempany3, Ramin Khorasani2. 1. Department of Radiology, Center for Evidence-Based Imaging, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 20 Kent Street, 2nd Floor, Boston, MA 02445. Electronic address: pcsilveira@partners.org. 2. Department of Radiology, Center for Evidence-Based Imaging, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 20 Kent Street, 2nd Floor, Boston, MA 02445; Division of Abdominal Imaging and Intervention, Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. Division of Abdominal Imaging and Intervention, Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 4. Department of Radiology, Center for Evidence-Based Imaging, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 20 Kent Street, 2nd Floor, Boston, MA 02445.
Abstract
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Assess the impact of implementing a structured report template and a computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) tool on the quality of prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mp-MRI) reports. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional Review Board approval was obtained for this Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant study performed at an academic medical center. The study cohort included all prostate mp-MRI reports (n = 385) finalized 6 months before and after implementation of a structured report template and a CAD tool (collectively the information technology [IT] tools) integrated into the picture archiving and communication system workstation. Primary outcome measure was quality of prostate mp-MRI reports. An expert panel of our institution's subspecialty-trained abdominal radiologists defined prostate mp-MRI report quality as optimal, satisfactory, or unsatisfactory based on documentation of nine variables. Reports were reviewed to extract the predefined quality variables and determine whether the IT tools were used to create each report. Chi-square and Student's t tests were used to compare report quality before and after implementation of IT tools. RESULTS: The overall proportion of optimal or satisfactory reports increased from 29.8% (47/158) to 53.3% (121/227) (P < .001) after implementing the IT tools. Although the proportion of optimal or satisfactory reports increased among reports generated using at least one of the IT tools (47/158 = [29.8%] vs. 105/161 = [65.2%]; P < .001), there was no change in quality among reports generated without use of the IT tools (47/158 = [29.8%] vs. 16/66 = [24.2%]; P = .404). CONCLUSIONS: The use of a structured template and CAD tool improved the quality of prostate mp-MRI reports compared to free-text report format and subjective measurement of contrast enhancement kinetic curve.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Assess the impact of implementing a structured report template and a computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) tool on the quality of prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mp-MRI) reports. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional Review Board approval was obtained for this Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant study performed at an academic medical center. The study cohort included all prostate mp-MRI reports (n = 385) finalized 6 months before and after implementation of a structured report template and a CAD tool (collectively the information technology [IT] tools) integrated into the picture archiving and communication system workstation. Primary outcome measure was quality of prostate mp-MRI reports. An expert panel of our institution's subspecialty-trained abdominal radiologists defined prostate mp-MRI report quality as optimal, satisfactory, or unsatisfactory based on documentation of nine variables. Reports were reviewed to extract the predefined quality variables and determine whether the IT tools were used to create each report. Chi-square and Student's t tests were used to compare report quality before and after implementation of IT tools. RESULTS: The overall proportion of optimal or satisfactory reports increased from 29.8% (47/158) to 53.3% (121/227) (P < .001) after implementing the IT tools. Although the proportion of optimal or satisfactory reports increased among reports generated using at least one of the IT tools (47/158 = [29.8%] vs. 105/161 = [65.2%]; P < .001), there was no change in quality among reports generated without use of the IT tools (47/158 = [29.8%] vs. 16/66 = [24.2%]; P = .404). CONCLUSIONS: The use of a structured template and CAD tool improved the quality of prostate mp-MRI reports compared to free-text report format and subjective measurement of contrast enhancement kinetic curve.
Authors: Annette J Johnson; Michael Y M Chen; J Shannon Swan; Kimberly E Applegate; Benjamin Littenberg Journal: Radiology Date: 2009-08-25 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Bibb Allen; David C Levin; Michael Brant-Zawadzki; Frank James Lexa; Richard Duszak Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Jurgen J Fütterer; Marc R Engelbrecht; Henkjan J Huisman; Gerrit J Jager; Christina A Hulsbergen-van De Kaa; J Alfred Witjes; Jelle O Barentsz Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Baris Turkbey; Peter A Pinto; Haresh Mani; Marcelino Bernardo; Yuxi Pang; Yolanda L McKinney; Kiranpreet Khurana; Gregory C Ravizzini; Paul S Albert; Maria J Merino; Peter L Choyke Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Louise Dickinson; Hashim U Ahmed; Clare Allen; Jelle O Barentsz; Brendan Carey; Jurgen J Futterer; Stijn W Heijmink; Peter J Hoskin; Alex Kirkham; Anwar R Padhani; Raj Persad; Philippe Puech; Shonit Punwani; Aslam S Sohaib; Bertrand Tombal; Arnauld Villers; Jan van der Meulen; Mark Emberton Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2010-12-21 Impact factor: 20.096