Andreas Gutzeit1,2,3, Regine Heiland4, Sonja Sudarski5,6, Johannes M Froehlich7,8, Klaus Hergan9, Matthias Meissnitzer9, Sebastian Kos7, Peter Bertke10, Orpheus Kolokythas11, Dow M Koh12. 1. Department of Radiology, Paracelsus Medical University Salzburg, Müllner Hauptstraße 48, A-5020, Salzburg, Austria. agutzeit2000@gmail.com. 2. Institute of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Hirslanden Klinik St. Anna, St. Anna-Strasse 32, 6006, Lucerne, Switzerland. agutzeit2000@gmail.com. 3. Department of Chemistry and Applied Biosciences, Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, ETH Zurich, Vladimir-Prelog-Weg 1-5 / 10, 8093, Zurich, Switzerland. agutzeit2000@gmail.com. 4. elbdialog GbR; Schulz von Thun Institute, Institute for Communication, Hamburg, Germany. 5. Institute of Clinical Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Theodor-Kutzer-Ufer 1-3, D-68167, Mannheim, Germany. 6. DZHK (German Centre for Cardiovascular Research) partner site Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany. 7. Institute of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Hirslanden Klinik St. Anna, St. Anna-Strasse 32, 6006, Lucerne, Switzerland. 8. Department of Chemistry and Applied Biosciences, Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, ETH Zurich, Vladimir-Prelog-Weg 1-5 / 10, 8093, Zurich, Switzerland. 9. Department of Radiology, Paracelsus Medical University Salzburg, Müllner Hauptstraße 48, A-5020, Salzburg, Austria. 10. Department of Internal Medicine, Hirslanden Klinik St. Anna, St. Anna-Strasse 31, 6006, Lucerne, Switzerland. 11. Department of Radiology, University Washington, 1959 NE Pacific St., Seattle, WA, 98190, USA. 12. Department of Radiology, Royal Marsden Hospital, Sutton, Surrey, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate patients' perception of the radiology service when the radiologist communicates the findings to patients. METHODS: After routine MRI, patients in group 1 (n = 101) were given the opportunity to discuss the findings with the radiologist. Patients in group 2 (n = 101) left the radiology department without any personal communication. Subsequently, by means of a questionnaire designed by an expert psychologist, both groups were asked regarding their anxiety, emotional attachment to the institute and subjective assessment of competence. RESULTS: Overall 76 % of all patients were concerned about their imaging findings without significant difference between both groups (p = 0.179). Significantly more patients in group 1 (81%) versus group 2 (14%; p < 0.001) perceived the opportunity to discuss their imaging findings with a radiologist to be a characteristic of a good radiology consultation. A larger number of patients in group 1 experienced significantly higher bonding and only wanted in the future to be examined in the department with communication (p = 0.001) (93%/75%). Significantly more patients in group 1 regarded the radiology department they attended as being more competent (mean score 4.72/4.09, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Direct communication of imaging findings from radiologists to patients after an MRI examination leads to increased confidence in the radiology service and higher bonding between the patient and radiologist. Radiologists who refrain from direct communication have a lower bonding to patients and are assessed to have lower competence from the patient's point of view. KEY POINTS: • Communication between radiologists and patients leads to an increased bonding affinity. • Direct communication leads to increased patient confidence in the radiology service. • Patients perceived discussion with a radiologist of high value.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate patients' perception of the radiology service when the radiologist communicates the findings to patients. METHODS: After routine MRI, patients in group 1 (n = 101) were given the opportunity to discuss the findings with the radiologist. Patients in group 2 (n = 101) left the radiology department without any personal communication. Subsequently, by means of a questionnaire designed by an expert psychologist, both groups were asked regarding their anxiety, emotional attachment to the institute and subjective assessment of competence. RESULTS: Overall 76 % of all patients were concerned about their imaging findings without significant difference between both groups (p = 0.179). Significantly more patients in group 1 (81%) versus group 2 (14%; p < 0.001) perceived the opportunity to discuss their imaging findings with a radiologist to be a characteristic of a good radiology consultation. A larger number of patients in group 1 experienced significantly higher bonding and only wanted in the future to be examined in the department with communication (p = 0.001) (93%/75%). Significantly more patients in group 1 regarded the radiology department they attended as being more competent (mean score 4.72/4.09, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Direct communication of imaging findings from radiologists to patients after an MRI examination leads to increased confidence in the radiology service and higher bonding between the patient and radiologist. Radiologists who refrain from direct communication have a lower bonding to patients and are assessed to have lower competence from the patient's point of view. KEY POINTS: • Communication between radiologists and patients leads to an increased bonding affinity. • Direct communication leads to increased patient confidence in the radiology service. • Patients perceived discussion with a radiologist of high value.
Authors: Charles E Kahn; Curtis P Langlotz; Elizabeth S Burnside; John A Carrino; David S Channin; David M Hovsepian; Daniel L Rubin Journal: Radiology Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Fred A Mettler; Mythreyi Bhargavan; Keith Faulkner; Debbie B Gilley; Joel E Gray; Geoffrey S Ibbott; Jill A Lipoti; Mahadevappa Mahesh; John L McCrohan; Michael G Stabin; Bruce R Thomadsen; Terry T Yoshizumi Journal: Radiology Date: 2009-09-29 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Pieter F van den Berg; Derya Yakar; Andor W J M Glaudemans; Rudi A J O Dierckx; Thomas C Kwee Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-03-22 Impact factor: 5.315
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
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
Authors: Simon Matoori; Bharti Khurana; Marta Chadwick Balcom; Johannes M Froehlich; Sonja Janssen; Rosemarie Forstner; Ann D King; Dow-Mu Koh; Andreas Gutzeit Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2020-10-06 Impact factor: 7.034