Literature DB >> 3187005

Radiology reporting: attitudes of referring physicians.

N J Clinger1, T B Hunter, B J Hillman.   

Abstract

Despite the importance of radiology reports in communicating radiologists' interpretations of imaging studies, little appears to be known about the preferences and attitudes of referring physicians regarding the format and content of such reports. The authors surveyed all physicians who referred patients to the radiology department for their opinions of radiology reports. Two hundred fifty-one physicians (42%) responded. The overall quality of the reports was rated an average of 8 on a ten-point scale, with 10 representing the highest quality. Fifty-nine percent said the reports usually were clear, but 40% thought the reports were occasionally confusing. Forty-nine percent noted the reports sometimes did not sufficiently address the clinical questions. Thirty-two percent preferred the summary statement to be at the beginning of the report, while 29% preferred this portion at the end. Forty respondents (16%) thought that it took too much time to receive the reports. This survey can serve as a model for other radiology departments interested in assessing the attitudes of referring physicians toward radiology reports.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1988        PMID: 3187005     DOI: 10.1148/radiology.169.3.3187005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  16 in total

1.  Electronic messaging between primary and secondary care: a four-year case report.

Authors:  P W Moorman; P J Branger; W J van der Kam; J van der Lei
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2001 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 4.497

2.  Improving communication of diagnostic radiology findings through structured reporting.

Authors:  Lawrence H Schwartz; David M Panicek; Alexandra R Berk; Yuelin Li; Hedvig Hricak
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2011-04-25       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Critical finding capture in the impression section of radiology reports.

Authors:  Esteban F Gershanik; Ronilda Lacson; Ramin Khorasani
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2011-10-22

Review 4.  Customization of medical report data.

Authors:  Bruce I Reiner
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 4.056

5.  Conceptual approach for the design of radiology reporting interfaces: the talking template.

Authors:  Chris L Sistrom
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 4.056

6.  General practitioners' views on radiology reports of plain radiography for back pain.

Authors:  Ansgar Espeland; Anders Baerheim
Journal:  Scand J Prim Health Care       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 2.581

7.  Radiology reporting: a general practitioner's perspective.

Authors:  F M Grieve; A A Plumb; S H Khan
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2009-05-26       Impact factor: 3.039

8.  Added value of selected images embedded into radiology reports to referring clinicians.

Authors:  Veena R Iyer; Peter F Hahn; Lawrence S Blaszkowsky; Sarah P Thayer; Elkan F Halpern; Mukesh G Harisinghani
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 5.532

9.  Brain magnetic resonance imaging: perception and expectations of neurologists, neurosurgeons and psychiatrists.

Authors:  Paulo Branco; Margarida Ayres-Basto; Pedro Portugal; Isabel Ramos; Daniela Seixas
Journal:  Neuroradiol J       Date:  2014-06-17

10.  Between Always and Never: Evaluating Uncertainty in Radiology Reports Using Natural Language Processing.

Authors:  Andrew L Callen; Sara M Dupont; Adi Price; Ben Laguna; David McCoy; Bao Do; Jason Talbott; Marc Kohli; Jared Narvid
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2020-08-19       Impact factor: 4.056

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.