A W Olthof1, J C de Groot2, A N Zorgdrager3, P M C Callenbach4, P M A van Ooijen5. 1. Department of Radiology, Treant Health Care Group, Dr. G.H. Amshoffweg 1, Hoogeveen, The Netherlands. Electronic address: a.olthof@treant.nl. 2. Department of Radiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, Groningen, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Neurology, Treant Health Care Group, Dr. G.H. Amshoffweg 1, Hoogeveen, The Netherlands. 4. Treant Health Care Group, Research Bureau, Dr. G.H. Amshoffweg 1, Hoogeveen, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Radiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, Groningen, The Netherlands; University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Center for Medical Imaging North East Netherlands (CMI-NEN), Hanzeplein 1, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Abstract
AIM: To investigate how neurologists perceive the value of the radiology report and to analyse the relation with the neurologists own expertise in radiology and the level of subspecialisation of radiologists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A web-based survey was distributed to neurologists. The level of subspecialisation was assessed by the percentage of fellowship-trained radiologists and the percentage of radiologists that were members of the Dutch Society of Neuroradiology. RESULTS: Most neurologists interpret all computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies themselves, and their self-confidence in making correct interpretations is high. Residents gave higher scores than neurologists for "Radiologist report answers the question" (p=0.039) and for "Radiologist reports give helpful advice" (p=0.001). Neurologists from university hospitals stated more frequently that the report answered their questions than neurologists from general hospitals (p=0.008). The general appreciation for radiology reports was higher for neurologists from university hospitals than from general hospitals (8.2 versus 7.2; p=0.003). Radiologists at university hospitals have a higher level of subspecialisation than those at general hospitals. CONCLUSION: Subspecialisation of radiologists leads to higher quality of radiology reporting as perceived by neurologists. Because of their expertise in radiology, neurologists are valuable sources of feedback for radiologists. Paying attention to the clinical questions and giving advice tailored to the needs of the referring physicians are opportunities to improve radiology reporting.
AIM: To investigate how neurologists perceive the value of the radiology report and to analyse the relation with the neurologists own expertise in radiology and the level of subspecialisation of radiologists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A web-based survey was distributed to neurologists. The level of subspecialisation was assessed by the percentage of fellowship-trained radiologists and the percentage of radiologists that were members of the Dutch Society of Neuroradiology. RESULTS: Most neurologists interpret all computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies themselves, and their self-confidence in making correct interpretations is high. Residents gave higher scores than neurologists for "Radiologist report answers the question" (p=0.039) and for "Radiologist reports give helpful advice" (p=0.001). Neurologists from university hospitals stated more frequently that the report answered their questions than neurologists from general hospitals (p=0.008). The general appreciation for radiology reports was higher for neurologists from university hospitals than from general hospitals (8.2 versus 7.2; p=0.003). Radiologists at university hospitals have a higher level of subspecialisation than those at general hospitals. CONCLUSION: Subspecialisation of radiologists leads to higher quality of radiology reporting as perceived by neurologists. Because of their expertise in radiology, neurologists are valuable sources of feedback for radiologists. Paying attention to the clinical questions and giving advice tailored to the needs of the referring physicians are opportunities to improve radiology reporting.
Authors: J H Masur; J E Schmitt; D Lalevic; T S Cook; L J Bagley; S Mohan; A P Nayate Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2021-03-04 Impact factor: 3.825