Jacob Guorgui1, Adam Kinnaird2, Rajiv Jayadevan2, Alan M Priester3, Corey W Arnold4, Leonard S Marks5. 1. David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095. 2. David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095; Department of Urology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095. 3. David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095; Department of Bioengineering, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095. 4. David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095; Department of Bioengineering, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095; Department of Radiological Sciences, University of California, Los Angeles CA, 90024; Department of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095. 5. David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095; Department of Urology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095. Electronic address: lmarks@mednet.ucla.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To detail the development of an electronic report that graphically conveys all relevant information from targeted prostate biopsy. METHODS: The Urology Integrated Diagnostic Report (Uro-IDR) is based on a published framework (RadPath) which enables the compilation of diagnostic data from urology, radiology, and pathology. Each component of the Uro-IDR is generated by the contributing clinician, is assembled in one document, and provides correlation of the 3 inputs at a glance. Upon completion, the Uro-IDR is automatically linked to the electronic medical record as an interactive file and can also be downloaded for offline sharing as a PDF. RESULTS: At our institution, 1638 individual Uro-IDRs were generated between June 2016 and April 2019. There were 5715 views of these documents via the EMR. The average turnaround time for the creation of an individual report decreased from nearly 8 days at the time of its launch to 2 days after 6 months of use. The average time for report generation was 22 seconds for the pathologist and 69 seconds for the radiologist. An instructive video is linked to this article. CONCLUSION: The Uro-IDR has proven to be a feasible, efficient, clinically useful form to concisely transmit key information about targeted prostate biopsy to both clinicians and patients.
OBJECTIVE: To detail the development of an electronic report that graphically conveys all relevant information from targeted prostate biopsy. METHODS: The Urology Integrated Diagnostic Report (Uro-IDR) is based on a published framework (RadPath) which enables the compilation of diagnostic data from urology, radiology, and pathology. Each component of the Uro-IDR is generated by the contributing clinician, is assembled in one document, and provides correlation of the 3 inputs at a glance. Upon completion, the Uro-IDR is automatically linked to the electronic medical record as an interactive file and can also be downloaded for offline sharing as a PDF. RESULTS: At our institution, 1638 individual Uro-IDRs were generated between June 2016 and April 2019. There were 5715 views of these documents via the EMR. The average turnaround time for the creation of an individual report decreased from nearly 8 days at the time of its launch to 2 days after 6 months of use. The average time for report generation was 22 seconds for the pathologist and 69 seconds for the radiologist. An instructive video is linked to this article. CONCLUSION: The Uro-IDR has proven to be a feasible, efficient, clinically useful form to concisely transmit key information about targeted prostate biopsy to both clinicians and patients.
Authors: Corey W Arnold; W Dean Wallace; Shawn Chen; Andrea Oh; Fereidoun Abtin; Scott Genshaft; Scott Binder; Denise Aberle; Dieter Enzmann Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2015-10-27 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Christopher P Filson; Shyam Natarajan; Daniel J A Margolis; Jiaoti Huang; Patricia Lieu; Frederick J Dorey; Robert E Reiter; Leonard S Marks Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-01-07 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: James Sorace; Denise R Aberle; Dena Elimam; Silvana Lawvere; Ossama Tawfik; W Dean Wallace Journal: BMC Med Date: 2012-09-05 Impact factor: 8.775