Literature DB >> 27876683

Preferences of referring physicians regarding the role of radiologists as direct communicators of test results.

Nuri Erdoğan1, Hakan İmamoğlu, Süreyya Burcu Görkem, Serap Doğan, Serkan Şenol, Ahmet Öztürk.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Currently, there is a growing need for patient-centered radiology in which radiologists communicate with patients directly. The aim of this study is to investigate the preferences of referring physicians (RPs) regarding direct communication between radiologists and patients.
METHODS: This study was conducted in a single academic hospital using a survey form. The survey items investigated the preferences of RPs regarding: 1. who should be the communicator of test results when a patient with abnormal findings requests information (the options were the radiologist; another health professional with communication skills training (CST); and the RP with CST); and 2. how the communication activity should be conducted if the radiologist is obliged (or chooses) to communicate with the patient directly (the options were that the disclosure should be limited to the findings in the radiology report; the radiologist should emphasize that the RP is the primary physician; and the communication activity should be conducted in accordance with guidelines established by consensus). The respondents were 101 RPs from various fields of specialty; they were asked to rate the items using a 5-point Likert scale. The effects of age, sex, field of specialty (surgical vs. nonsurgical), and total years of experience as a medical specialist on the ratings were statistically compared.
RESULTS: Most RPs preferred that the radiologist transmit the information to the RP without communicating directly with the patient (89.1%). Although 69.3% of the RPs declared that health professionals with CST have priority in communication, 86.1% declared that the RP should be the person who received CST. If the radiologist communicates with patients directly, the RPs favored that 1. the disclosure should be limited to the findings in the radiology report (95%); 2. the communication activity should include an emphasis on the RP as the patient's primary agent (84.1%); and 3. communication should be conducted in accordance with guidelines established by consensus (73.2%). The percentage of strong opinions did not change significantly with regard to age, sex, field of specialty, or total years of experience, except that surgeons expressed strong disagreement with delegating the communication activity to another health professional who received CST (χ² = 9.9; P = 0.042).
CONCLUSION: These findings may serve as a basis to implement institutional and national policies for patient-centered radiology.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 27876683      PMCID: PMC5214083          DOI: 10.5152/dir.2016.16325

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Diagn Interv Radiol        ISSN: 1305-3825            Impact factor:   2.630


  26 in total

1.  Communicating findings of radiologic examinations: whither goest the radiologist's duty?

Authors:  Leonard Berlin
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 3.959

2.  Radiology's value chain.

Authors:  Dieter R Enzmann
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  The invisible radiologist.

Authors:  Gary M Glazer; Julie A Ruiz-Wibbelsmann
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Communicating results directly to patients: don't ignore the price tag of this added "value".

Authors:  Saurabh Jha
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 3.173

5.  Communicating findings: a justification and framework for direct radiologic disclosure to patients.

Authors:  Ian Amber; Autumn Fiester
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2013-03       Impact factor: 3.959

6.  Teaching interpersonal and communication skills.

Authors:  Richard B Gunderman; Brandon P Brown
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 3.173

7.  Radiologists' role in the communication of imaging examination results to patients: perceptions and preferences of patients.

Authors:  Mark D Mangano; Arifeen Rahman; Garry Choy; Dushyant V Sahani; Giles W Boland; Andrew J Gunn
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2014-11       Impact factor: 3.959

8.  Radiologists' responses to patients' inquiries about imaging results. A pilot study on opinions of various groups.

Authors:  H H Song; S H Park; K S Shinn
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  1993-11       Impact factor: 6.016

9.  Direct reporting of results to patients: the future of radiology?

Authors:  Melanie Kuhlman; Monique Meyer; Elizabeth A Krupinski
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 3.173

Review 10.  How to communicate with patients about future illness progression and end of life: a systematic review.

Authors:  Ruth Parry; Victoria Land; Jane Seymour
Journal:  BMJ Support Palliat Care       Date:  2014-10-24       Impact factor: 3.568

View more
  4 in total

1.  Direct communication between radiologists and patients following imaging examinations. Should radiologists rethink their patient care?

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

2.  Clinical decision support system recommendations: how often do radiologists and clinicians accept them?

Authors:  Mor Saban; Jacob Sosna; Clara Singer; Sharona Vaknin; Vicki Myers; Dorit Shaham; Jacob Assaf; Alon Hershko; Paula Feder-Bubis; Rachel Wilf-Miron; Osnat Luxenburg
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2022-01-13       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  "I was seen by a radiologist, but unfortunately I can't remember the name and I still have questions. What should I do?" Radiologists should give thoughts to improve service professionalism and patient esteem.

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

4.  Humor in radiological breast cancer screening: a way of improving patient service?

Authors:  Selina Largiader; Andreas Gutzeit; Elisabeth Sartoretti; Thomas Sartoretti; Dow Mu Koh; Sabine Sartoretti-Schefer; Sebastian Kos; Romana Goette; Ricardo Donners; Robyn Benz; Johannes M Froehlich; Simon Matoori; Peter Dubsky; Tino Plümecke; Rosemarie Forstner; Willibald Ruch; Matthias Meissnitzer; Klaus Hergan
Journal:  Cancer Imaging       Date:  2022-10-08       Impact factor: 5.605

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.