Elliot Dickerson1, Matthew S Davenport2, Faiz Syed3, Olaf Stuve4, Jeffrey A Cohen5, John R Rinker6, Myla D Goldman7, Benjamin M Segal8, Bradley R Foerster2. 1. Department of Radiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Electronic address: elliot.dickerson@ucsf.edu. 2. Department of Radiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Michigan Radiology Quality Collaborative, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 3. Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 4. Department of Neurology and Neurotherapeutics, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas. 5. Department of Neurology, Cleveland Clinic, Mellen Center, Cleveland, Ohio. 6. Department of Neurology, University of Alabama, Birmingham, Alabama. 7. Department of Neurology, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia. 8. Department of Neurology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the impact of structured reporting templates on the objective and subjective quality of radiology reports for brain MRIs in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). METHODS: A HIPAA-compliant prospective quality improvement initiative was undertaken to develop and implement a 12-item structured reporting template for brain MRI examinations in patients with known or suspected MS based on published guidelines. Reports created 1 year before implementing the template served as the baseline. A random sample of 10 template and 10 non-template reports was sent to five neurologists outside the study institution with MS expertise, who reviewed the reports for comprehensiveness and quality. The number of MS-relevant elements in template and non-template reports were compared with unpaired t tests. Proportions were compared with χ2 and Fisher exact tests. RESULTS: There were 63 reports in the pre-template period and 93 reports in the post-template period. Use of the template increased over time in the post-template period (P = .04). All 12 MS-relevant findings were addressed more often and with less variability in template reports: (11.1 ± 0.7 findings versus 5.8 ± 2.2 findings in non-template reports, P < .001). Neurologists were more likely to give the template reports the highest positive rating (56% [107/190] versus 28% [56/199], P < .001) and less likely to give the template reports a lower rating (7% [13/190] versus 15% [29/199], P = .01) compared with the non-template reports. CONCLUSION: Template reporting of brain MRI examinations increases the rate at which MS-relevant findings are included in the report. Standardized reports are preferred by neurologists with MS expertise.
PURPOSE: To assess the impact of structured reporting templates on the objective and subjective quality of radiology reports for brain MRIs in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). METHODS: A HIPAA-compliant prospective quality improvement initiative was undertaken to develop and implement a 12-item structured reporting template for brain MRI examinations in patients with known or suspected MS based on published guidelines. Reports created 1 year before implementing the template served as the baseline. A random sample of 10 template and 10 non-template reports was sent to five neurologists outside the study institution with MS expertise, who reviewed the reports for comprehensiveness and quality. The number of MS-relevant elements in template and non-template reports were compared with unpaired t tests. Proportions were compared with χ2 and Fisher exact tests. RESULTS: There were 63 reports in the pre-template period and 93 reports in the post-template period. Use of the template increased over time in the post-template period (P = .04). All 12 MS-relevant findings were addressed more often and with less variability in template reports: (11.1 ± 0.7 findings versus 5.8 ± 2.2 findings in non-template reports, P < .001). Neurologists were more likely to give the template reports the highest positive rating (56% [107/190] versus 28% [56/199], P < .001) and less likely to give the template reports a lower rating (7% [13/190] versus 15% [29/199], P = .01) compared with the non-template reports. CONCLUSION: Template reporting of brain MRI examinations increases the rate at which MS-relevant findings are included in the report. Standardized reports are preferred by neurologists with MS expertise.
Authors: Matthew S Davenport; Eric M Hu; Andrew Zhang; Atul B Shinagare; Andrew D Smith; Ivan Pedrosa; Samuel D Kaffenberger; Stuart G Silverman Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2019-04
Authors: Matthew S Davenport; Hersh Chandarana; Nicole E Curci; Ankur Doshi; Samuel D Kaffenberger; Ivan Pedrosa; Erick M Remer; Nicola Schieda; Atul B Shinagare; Andrew D Smith; Zhen J Wang; Shane A Wells; Stuart G Silverman Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2018-09
Authors: Jan C Peeken; Josefine Hesse; Bernhard Haller; Kerstin A Kessel; Fridtjof Nüsslin; Stephanie E Combs Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2018-02-13 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Rubab F Malik; Alina Hasanain; Kelly J Lafaro; Jin He; Amol K Narang; Elliot K Fishman; Atif Zaheer Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2021-11-20
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: Sebastian Mönch; Tiberiu Andrisan; Kathleen Bernkopf; Benno Ikenberg; Benjamin Friedrich; Claus Zimmer; Dennis M Hedderich Journal: BMC Med Imaging Date: 2021-05-25 Impact factor: 1.930
Authors: Su Hwan Kim; Lara M Sobez; Judith E Spiro; Adrian Curta; Felix Ceelen; Eric Kampmann; Martin Goepfert; Raphael Bodensohn; Felix G Meinel; Wieland H Sommer; Nora N Sommer; Franziska Galiè Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2020-04-16 Impact factor: 2.362