Michael J Magnetta1, Ashley L Donovan2, Bruce L Jacobs3, Benjamin J Davies3, Alessandro Furlan1. 1. 1 Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, 200 Lothrop St, Pittsburgh, PA 15213. 2. 2 School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA. 3. 3 Department of Urology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to develop an evidence-based method to optimize prostate MRI reports that would improve communication between urologists and radiologists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This quality improvement initiative was approved by the institutional Quality Improvement Review Committee. A structured report was developed containing essential components defined by local practice norms and Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) lexicon version 2. Two hundred preintervention and 100 postintervention reports were retrospectively reviewed for essential components. Additionally, a sample of 40 reports generated before the intervention and 40 reports generated after the intervention that made use of the structured report were evaluated by a urologist and were scored on a 5-point scale for consistency, completeness, conciseness, clarity, likelihood to contact radiologist, and clinical impact. Variables were compared with ANOVA, chi-square, or Fisher exact test. RESULTS: Essential components of the report were utilization of the PI-RADSv2 lexicon, findings listed by lesion, reporting of pertinent positive and negative findings (extraprostatic extension, seminal vesicle, and neurovascular bundle invasion), and low word count. In postintervention reports, all essential measures were statistically improved except for mean report word count. The urologist indicated statistically improved consistency (before intervention, 2.7; after intervention, 3.5; χ2 < 0.001), completeness (before intervention, 2.8; after intervention, 3.3; χ2 < 0.001), clarity (before intervention, 2.9; after intervention, 3.3; χ2 < 0.05), and clinical impact (before intervention, 2.8; after intervention, 3.8; χ2 < 0.001) of the report with reduced perceived need to contact (before intervention, 3.2; after intervention, 2.1; χ2 < 0.001) the interpreting radiologist for explanation. CONCLUSION: The structured prostate MRI report resulted in improved communication with referring urologists as indicated by the increased perceived clinical impact of the report.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to develop an evidence-based method to optimize prostate MRI reports that would improve communication between urologists and radiologists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This quality improvement initiative was approved by the institutional Quality Improvement Review Committee. A structured report was developed containing essential components defined by local practice norms and Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) lexicon version 2. Two hundred preintervention and 100 postintervention reports were retrospectively reviewed for essential components. Additionally, a sample of 40 reports generated before the intervention and 40 reports generated after the intervention that made use of the structured report were evaluated by a urologist and were scored on a 5-point scale for consistency, completeness, conciseness, clarity, likelihood to contact radiologist, and clinical impact. Variables were compared with ANOVA, chi-square, or Fisher exact test. RESULTS: Essential components of the report were utilization of the PI-RADSv2 lexicon, findings listed by lesion, reporting of pertinent positive and negative findings (extraprostatic extension, seminal vesicle, and neurovascular bundle invasion), and low word count. In postintervention reports, all essential measures were statistically improved except for mean report word count. The urologist indicated statistically improved consistency (before intervention, 2.7; after intervention, 3.5; χ2 < 0.001), completeness (before intervention, 2.8; after intervention, 3.3; χ2 < 0.001), clarity (before intervention, 2.9; after intervention, 3.3; χ2 < 0.05), and clinical impact (before intervention, 2.8; after intervention, 3.8; χ2 < 0.001) of the report with reduced perceived need to contact (before intervention, 3.2; after intervention, 2.1; χ2 < 0.001) the interpreting radiologist for explanation. CONCLUSION: The structured prostate MRI report resulted in improved communication with referring urologists as indicated by the increased perceived clinical impact of the report.
Authors: Elizabeth A Sadowski; Atul B Shinagare; Hyesun Park; Olga R Brook; Rosemarie Forstner; Sumer K Wallace; Jeanne M Horowitz; Neil Horowitz; Marcia Javitt; Priyanka Jha; Aki Kido; Yulia Lakhman; Susanna I Lee; Lucia Manganaro; Katherine E Maturen; Stephanie Nougaret; Liina Poder; Gaiane M Rauch; Caroline Reinhold; Evis Sala; Isabelle Thomassin-Naggara; Herbert Alberto Vargas; Aradhana Venkatesan; Olivera Nikolic; Andrea G Rockall Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2021-11-30 Impact factor: 7.034
Authors: C Wetterauer; D J Winkel; J R Federer-Gsponer; A Halla; S Subotic; A Deckart; H H Seifert; D T Boll; J Ebbing Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-02-19 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Roberto Cannella; Adele Taibbi; Salvatore Pardo; Giuseppe Lo Re; Ludovico La Grutta; Tommaso Vincenzo Bartolotta Journal: BJR Open Date: 2019-04-29