Zeeshaan S Bhatti1, Richard K J Brown2, Ella A Kazerooni2, Matthew S Davenport3. 1. Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Health System, 1500 E. Medical Center Dr. B2-A209P, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 48108. 2. Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Health System, 1500 E. Medical Center Dr. B2-A209P, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 48108; Michigan Radiology Quality Collaborative, 1500 E. Medical Center Dr. B2-A209P, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 48108. 3. Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Health System, 1500 E. Medical Center Dr. B2-A209P, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 48108; Michigan Radiology Quality Collaborative, 1500 E. Medical Center Dr. B2-A209P, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 48108. Electronic address: matdaven@med.umich.edu.
Abstract
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine the preferences of radiology and referring provider residents regarding direct communication of radiology test results. METHODS: This Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant quality improvement effort was exempt from institutional review board oversight. An anonymous survey was emailed to 44 radiology residents and 364 referring resident providers who routinely provide or receive direct communication of test results at our quaternary care medical center. The survey focused on the frequency, indication, clinical utility, and methods of direct communication of radiology results. Proportions were compared to chi-square or Fisher exact test. RESULTS: The response rates were 86% (37 of 43) (radiology) and 41% (151 of 364) (referring providers). Approximately half of radiology residents (49% [18 of 37]) thought the frequency of direct verbal communication was excessive, and none (0 of 37) thought more communication was needed. In contrast, only 1.3% (2 of 151; P < .001) of referring providers felt the frequency was excessive, and 24% (36 of 151; P < .001) desired more. The majority (66% [100 of 151]) of referring providers felt phone calls from radiologists often or always added value beyond a timely radiology report, and 59% (44 of 74) felt it is the radiologist's responsibility to call about abnormal findings. Furthermore, 83% (125 of 151) of referring providers preferred to receive a phone call about non-emergent unexpected findings, although preferences varied for various example abnormalities. For outpatients with non-emergent unexpected findings, most providers (90% [64 of 71]) prefer written communication rather than a phone call. CONCLUSIONS: Referring providers prefer direct communication of radiology results, even for non-urgent unexpected findings, whereas radiology residents prefer less direct communication and are more likely to consider radiologist-to-provider communication superfluous.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine the preferences of radiology and referring provider residents regarding direct communication of radiology test results. METHODS: This Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant quality improvement effort was exempt from institutional review board oversight. An anonymous survey was emailed to 44 radiology residents and 364 referring resident providers who routinely provide or receive direct communication of test results at our quaternary care medical center. The survey focused on the frequency, indication, clinical utility, and methods of direct communication of radiology results. Proportions were compared to chi-square or Fisher exact test. RESULTS: The response rates were 86% (37 of 43) (radiology) and 41% (151 of 364) (referring providers). Approximately half of radiology residents (49% [18 of 37]) thought the frequency of direct verbal communication was excessive, and none (0 of 37) thought more communication was needed. In contrast, only 1.3% (2 of 151; P < .001) of referring providers felt the frequency was excessive, and 24% (36 of 151; P < .001) desired more. The majority (66% [100 of 151]) of referring providers felt phone calls from radiologists often or always added value beyond a timely radiology report, and 59% (44 of 74) felt it is the radiologist's responsibility to call about abnormal findings. Furthermore, 83% (125 of 151) of referring providers preferred to receive a phone call about non-emergent unexpected findings, although preferences varied for various example abnormalities. For outpatients with non-emergent unexpected findings, most providers (90% [64 of 71]) prefer written communication rather than a phone call. CONCLUSIONS: Referring providers prefer direct communication of radiology results, even for non-urgent unexpected findings, whereas radiology residents prefer less direct communication and are more likely to consider radiologist-to-provider communication superfluous.