Justin Holder1, Irena Tocino2, David Facchini2, Nicole Nardecchia2, Lawrence Staib2, Dan Crawley2, Jay K Pahade2. 1. Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Yale-New Haven Hospital, Yale School of Medicine, 333 Cedar Street, PO Box 208042, New Haven, CT, United States of America. Electronic address: juholder@montefiore.org. 2. Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Yale-New Haven Hospital, Yale School of Medicine, 333 Cedar Street, PO Box 208042, New Haven, CT, United States of America.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of our study is to evaluate the current practice patterns of radiology report release into electronic patient portals. METHODS: A survey to assess details of radiology report release was distributed to members of The Association of Administrators in Academic Radiology across the United States. Numerical analysis was used to calculate the frequencies and percentages for the clinical site, frequency and pattern of patient portal use were calculated. Statistical analysis determined the percentages and frequencies for the clinical site, frequency and pattern of patient portal use, as well as statistical differences. RESULTS: A total of 31 (response rate = 28%, 31/108) at least partially completed surveys were received. Most (29/31, 94%) sites reported having a patient portal available with 80% (12/15) reporting < 50% patient utilization. There were no significant (p > 0.05) geographical differences noted in percentage utilization. Seventy-eight percent (21/27) of sites reported some form of automatic radiology report release into their portal. Mean delay was 4 days (range 0-7) from report completion to portal release. No correlation (r = 2) was seen between percentage of patient utilization of portals and timing of radiology report release. CONCLUSION: Most academic centers across the country have patient portals, however, most of these centers report less than 50% utilization of the portals by patients. While variability in radiology report release in patient portals was noted, the majority (78%) of academic medical centers have some form of automatic report release with average delay of 4 days between report completion to portal release.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of our study is to evaluate the current practice patterns of radiology report release into electronic patient portals. METHODS: A survey to assess details of radiology report release was distributed to members of The Association of Administrators in Academic Radiology across the United States. Numerical analysis was used to calculate the frequencies and percentages for the clinical site, frequency and pattern of patient portal use were calculated. Statistical analysis determined the percentages and frequencies for the clinical site, frequency and pattern of patient portal use, as well as statistical differences. RESULTS: A total of 31 (response rate = 28%, 31/108) at least partially completed surveys were received. Most (29/31, 94%) sites reported having a patient portal available with 80% (12/15) reporting < 50% patient utilization. There were no significant (p > 0.05) geographical differences noted in percentage utilization. Seventy-eight percent (21/27) of sites reported some form of automatic radiology report release into their portal. Mean delay was 4 days (range 0-7) from report completion to portal release. No correlation (r = 2) was seen between percentage of patient utilization of portals and timing of radiology report release. CONCLUSION: Most academic centers across the country have patient portals, however, most of these centers report less than 50% utilization of the portals by patients. While variability in radiology report release in patient portals was noted, the majority (78%) of academic medical centers have some form of automatic report release with average delay of 4 days between report completion to portal release.
Authors: Seth J Berkowitz; David Kwan; Toby C Cornish; Elliot L Silver; Karen S Thullner; Alex Aisen; Marilyn M Bui; Shawn D Clark; David A Clunie; Monief Eid; Douglas J Hartman; Kinson Ho; Andrei Leontiev; Damien M Luviano; Peter E O'Toole; Anil V Parwani; Nielsen S Pereira; Veronica Rotemberg; David J Vining; Cree M Gaskin; Christopher J Roth; Les R Folio Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2022-08-12 Impact factor: 4.903