Marco Armbruster1, Sebastian Gassenmaier2, Mareike Haack3, Maximilian Reiter3, Dominik Nörenberg1, Thomas Henzler4, Nora N Sommer1, Wieland H Sommer1, Franziska Braun1. 1. Department of Radiology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University (LMU), Campus Großhadern, Marchioninistraße 15, 81377, Munich, Germany. 2. Department of Radiology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University (LMU), Campus Großhadern, Marchioninistraße 15, 81377, Munich, Germany. Sebastian.gassenmaier@med.uni-muenchen.de. 3. Department of Otolaryngology/Head and Neck Surgery, Ludwig-Maximilians-University (LMU), Campus Großhadern, Munich, Germany. 4. Institute of Clinical Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate whether structured reports (SRs) provide benefits regarding the completeness and the clarity of reports, as well as regarding the satisfaction of the referring physicians compared to narrative freetext reports (NRs) of MRI examinations of the petrous bone. METHODS: After sample size calculation, 32 patients with clinically indicated MRI examinations of the petrous bone were included in this retrospective study. The already existing NRs were taken from the radiologic information system. The corresponding SRs were retrospectively generated by two radiologists using an online-based application. All 64 reports (one NR and one SR per patient) were evaluated by two head and neck physicians using a questionnaire. RESULTS: While 41% of the SRs showed no missing report key feature, all NRs exhibited at least one missing key feature (p < 0.001). SRs achieved significantly higher satisfaction rates regarding the linguistic quality and overall report quality compared to NRs: Using a 6-point Likert scale (1 = insufficient to 6 = excellent), SRs were rated with a median value of 6 [interquartile range (IQR): 1] for linguistic as well as overall quality, and NRs were rated with a median of 5 (IQR: 0) for linguistic as well as overall quality (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Structured reporting of petrous bone MRI examinations may positively influence the completeness and quality of radiologic reports. Due to the easier readability and facilitation of information extraction, SRs improve the satisfaction level of the referring physicians.
PURPOSE: To investigate whether structured reports (SRs) provide benefits regarding the completeness and the clarity of reports, as well as regarding the satisfaction of the referring physicians compared to narrative freetext reports (NRs) of MRI examinations of the petrous bone. METHODS: After sample size calculation, 32 patients with clinically indicated MRI examinations of the petrous bone were included in this retrospective study. The already existing NRs were taken from the radiologic information system. The corresponding SRs were retrospectively generated by two radiologists using an online-based application. All 64 reports (one NR and one SR per patient) were evaluated by two head and neck physicians using a questionnaire. RESULTS: While 41% of the SRs showed no missing report key feature, all NRs exhibited at least one missing key feature (p < 0.001). SRs achieved significantly higher satisfaction rates regarding the linguistic quality and overall report quality compared to NRs: Using a 6-point Likert scale (1 = insufficient to 6 = excellent), SRs were rated with a median value of 6 [interquartile range (IQR): 1] for linguistic as well as overall quality, and NRs were rated with a median of 5 (IQR: 0) for linguistic as well as overall quality (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Structured reporting of petrous bone MRI examinations may positively influence the completeness and quality of radiologic reports. Due to the easier readability and facilitation of information extraction, SRs improve the satisfaction level of the referring physicians.
Entities:
Keywords:
Clinical decision support; Clinical informatics; Quality; Radiology; Workflows and human interactions
Authors: Sebastian Gassenmaier; Marco Armbruster; Florian Haasters; Tobias Helfen; Thomas Henzler; Sedat Alibek; Dominik Pförringer; Wieland H Sommer; Nora N Sommer Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-03-13 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: J L Sobel; M L Pearson; K Gross; K A Desmond; E R Harrison; L V Rubenstein; W H Rogers; K L Kahn Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 1996-09 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Dominik Nörenberg; Wieland H Sommer; Wolfgang Thasler; Jan DʼHaese; Markus Rentsch; Thomas Kolben; Andreas Schreyer; Carsten Rist; Maximilian Reiser; Marco Armbruster Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2017-04 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Benjamin P Ernst; Sebastian Strieth; Fabian Katzer; Mohamed Hodeib; Jonas Eckrich; Katharina Bahr; Tobias Rader; Julian Künzel; Matthias F Froelich; Christoph Matthias; Wieland H Sommer; Sven Becker Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2019-10-14 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: J Künzel; A Bozzato; B P Ernst; T Fuhrmann; I Ugele; C Scherl; M Schapher; G F Volk; N Mansour; A Knopf; C Bohr; K-F Hamann Journal: HNO Date: 2021-01-13 Impact factor: 1.284