V Anik Sahni1,2, Patricia C Silveira1,2, Nisha I Sainani2, Ramin Khorasani1,2. 1. 1 Center for Evidence-Based Imaging, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 20 Kent St, 2nd Fl, Brookline, MA 02445. 2. 2 Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to assess the impact of implementing a structured report template on the quality of MRI reports for rectal cancer staging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After excluding examinations performed after surgery or neoadjuvant therapy, we analyzed all rectal cancer staging MRI reports finalized at an academic medical center 12 months before and after an intervention consisting of implementing a structured report template integrated into the institution's speech recognition system. The primary outcome measure was the quality of rectal cancer staging MRI reports classified as optimal, satisfactory, or unsatisfactory, on the basis of the documentation of 14 quality measures predefined by a consensus of the institution's abdominal radiology subspecialists. Chi-square and t tests were used to assess differences in report quality and documentation of each discrete quality measure before and after the intervention. RESULTS: The study cohort included 106 MRI reports from 104 patients (mean age, 60 years; 58.5% male); 52 (49.1%) of the reports were completed before implementation of the structured report template. After implementation, the proportion of total reports classified as optimal or satisfactory increased from 38.5% (20/52) to 70.4% (38/54) (p = 0.0010). No reports generated before the intervention were classified as optimal, whereas 40.7% (22/54) of reports were classified as optimal after the intervention. CONCLUSION: Implementation and voluntary use of a structured report template improved the quality of MRI reports for rectal cancer staging compared with free-text format.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to assess the impact of implementing a structured report template on the quality of MRI reports for rectal cancer staging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After excluding examinations performed after surgery or neoadjuvant therapy, we analyzed all rectal cancer staging MRI reports finalized at an academic medical center 12 months before and after an intervention consisting of implementing a structured report template integrated into the institution's speech recognition system. The primary outcome measure was the quality of rectal cancer staging MRI reports classified as optimal, satisfactory, or unsatisfactory, on the basis of the documentation of 14 quality measures predefined by a consensus of the institution's abdominal radiology subspecialists. Chi-square and t tests were used to assess differences in report quality and documentation of each discrete quality measure before and after the intervention. RESULTS: The study cohort included 106 MRI reports from 104 patients (mean age, 60 years; 58.5% male); 52 (49.1%) of the reports were completed before implementation of the structured report template. After implementation, the proportion of total reports classified as optimal or satisfactory increased from 38.5% (20/52) to 70.4% (38/54) (p = 0.0010). No reports generated before the intervention were classified as optimal, whereas 40.7% (22/54) of reports were classified as optimal after the intervention. CONCLUSION: Implementation and voluntary use of a structured report template improved the quality of MRI reports for rectal cancer staging compared with free-text format.
Entities:
Keywords:
rectal cancer staging MRI; report quality; structured report template
Authors: Franziska Schoeppe; Wieland H Sommer; Mareike Haack; Miriam Havel; Marika Rheinwald; Juliane Wechtenbruch; Martin R Fischer; Felix G Meinel; Bastian O Sabel; Nora N Sommer Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-07-28 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Daniel Pinto Dos Santos; Sonja Scheibl; Gordon Arnhold; Aline Maehringer-Kunz; Christoph Düber; Peter Mildenberger; Roman Kloeckner Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2018-06-05 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Benjamin P Ernst; Sebastian Strieth; Fabian Katzer; Mohamed Hodeib; Jonas Eckrich; Katharina Bahr; Tobias Rader; Julian Künzel; Matthias F Froelich; Christoph Matthias; Wieland H Sommer; Sven Becker Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2019-10-14 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Jennifer S Golia Pernicka; David D B Bates; James L Fuqua; Andrea Knezevic; Joongchul Yoon; Lorenzo Nardo; Iva Petkovska; Viktoriya Paroder; Garrett M Nash; Arnold J Markowitz; Marc J Gollub Journal: Clin Imaging Date: 2021-08-26 Impact factor: 1.605
Authors: Amar Udare; Minu Agarwal; Kiret Dhindsa; Amer Alaref; Michael Patlas; Abdullah Alabousi; Yoan K Kagoma; Christian B van der Pol Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2022-01-10 Impact factor: 4.056
Authors: Marco Armbruster; Sebastian Gassenmaier; Mareike Haack; Maximilian Reiter; Dominik Nörenberg; Thomas Henzler; Nora N Sommer; Wieland H Sommer; Franziska Braun Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2018-07-23 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: Franziska Schoeppe; Wieland H Sommer; Dominik Nörenberg; Mareike Verbeek; Christian Bogner; C Benedikt Westphalen; Martin Dreyling; Ernst J Rummeny; Alexander A Fingerle Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-03-29 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Jeffrey Levine; Iva Petkovska; Jonathan Landa; David D B Bates; Marinela Capanu; J Louis Fuqua; Viktoriya Paroder; Junting Zheng; Marc J Gollub; Jennifer S Golia Pernicka Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2021-02-04
Authors: Guilherme M Cunha; Kathryn J Fowler; Alexandra Roudenko; Bachir Taouli; Alice W Fung; Khaled M Elsayes; Robert M Marks; Irene Cruite; Natally Horvat; Victoria Chernyak; Claude B Sirlin; An Tang Journal: Radiographics Date: 2021-07-23 Impact factor: 6.312