Miguel Cabarrus1, David M Naeger2, Alexander Rybkin1, Aliya Qayyum3. 1. Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California. 2. Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California. Electronic address: david.naeger@ucsf.edu. 3. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Imaging results are generally communicated to patients by referring providers. Directly communicating results has been suggested as a way for radiologists to add value, though few studies have investigated patients' preferences in this regard. The aim of this study was to determine patients' preferences for receiving their imaging results. METHODS: In this institutional review board-approved study, adult outpatients undergoing CT or MRI at an academic medical center and an affiliated county hospital over a 4-week period (n = 2,483) were surveyed. The survey assessed patients' preferred delivery method for radiology results and their understanding of radiologists' education and role. RESULTS: A total of 617 surveys (25% response rate) were completed, 475 (77%) and 142 (23%) by academic medical center and county hospital patients, respectively. Among all respondents, the majority of patients (387 of 617 [63%]) preferred models of results delivery centered on the referring physician as opposed to the radiologist. Regardless of who verbally relayed the results, 64% of all respondents (398 of 617) wanted the option to receive a copy of the report, and 522 of 614 (85%) wanted to see their images. Among patients wanting copies of their reports, academic medical center patients expressed equal interest in mail, e-mail, and online portal options (33%, 31%, and 36%, respectively), and county hospital patients preferred mail (55%, 28%, and 17%, respectively) (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients prefer receiving their imaging results through their referring providers. Many patients would also like to view their images and receive copies of their reports, potential avenues through which radiologists could add value.
PURPOSE: Imaging results are generally communicated to patients by referring providers. Directly communicating results has been suggested as a way for radiologists to add value, though few studies have investigated patients' preferences in this regard. The aim of this study was to determine patients' preferences for receiving their imaging results. METHODS: In this institutional review board-approved study, adult outpatients undergoing CT or MRI at an academic medical center and an affiliated county hospital over a 4-week period (n = 2,483) were surveyed. The survey assessed patients' preferred delivery method for radiology results and their understanding of radiologists' education and role. RESULTS: A total of 617 surveys (25% response rate) were completed, 475 (77%) and 142 (23%) by academic medical center and county hospital patients, respectively. Among all respondents, the majority of patients (387 of 617 [63%]) preferred models of results delivery centered on the referring physician as opposed to the radiologist. Regardless of who verbally relayed the results, 64% of all respondents (398 of 617) wanted the option to receive a copy of the report, and 522 of 614 (85%) wanted to see their images. Among patients wanting copies of their reports, academic medical center patients expressed equal interest in mail, e-mail, and online portal options (33%, 31%, and 36%, respectively), and county hospital patients preferred mail (55%, 28%, and 17%, respectively) (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS:Patients prefer receiving their imaging results through their referring providers. Many patients would also like to view their images and receive copies of their reports, potential avenues through which radiologists could add value.
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
Authors: J L Witherow; H J Jenkins; J M Elliott; G H Ip; C G Maher; J S Magnussen; M J Hancock Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2022-02-24 Impact factor: 3.825
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
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: Andrew W Phillips; Rebecca A Landon; Gregory S Stacy; Larry Dixon; Andrea L Magee; Stephen D Thomas; Xi Dai; Christopher Straus Journal: Cureus Date: 2020-05-17
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