Andreas Gutzeit1,2, Elisabeth Sartoretti3, Clemens Reisinger4, Janusch Blautzik4, Sabine Sartoretti-Schefer5, Sebastian Kos4, Arne Fischmann4, Ricardo Donners6, Dorothee Harder7, Matthias Meissnitzer8, Klaus Hergan8, Selina Largiadèr3, Rosemarie Forstner8, Johannes M Froehlich9, Carolin Reischauer10,11, Simon Matoori4, Dow Mu Koh12, Thomas Sartoretti3,13. 1. Department of Radiology, Paracelsus Medical University, Strubergasse 21, 5020, Salzburg, Austria. agutzeit2000@gmail.com. 2. Department of Chemistry and Applied Biosciences, Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, ETH Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland. agutzeit2000@gmail.com. 3. Faculty of Medicine, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland. 4. Institute of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine and Breast Center St. Anna, Hirslanden Klinik St. Anna, Lucerne, Switzerland. 5. Department of Radiology, Cantonal Hospital Winterthur, Winterthur, Switzerland. 6. Department of Radiology, Royal Marsden Hospital Downs Road, SM2 5PT, Sutton, UK. 7. Department of Radiology, University Hospital Basel, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland. 8. Department of Radiology, Paracelsus Medical University, Strubergasse 21, 5020, Salzburg, Austria. 9. Clinical Research Group, Klus Apotheke Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland. 10. Department of Medicine, University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland. 11. Department of Radiology, Cantonal Hospital Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland. 12. Cancer Research UK Clinical Magnetic Resonance Research Group, Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, Surrey, UK. 13. Cardiovascular Research Institute Maastricht (CARIM), Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We investigate in what percentage of cases and to what extent radiological reports change when radiologists directly communicate with patients after imaging examinations. METHODS: One hundred twenty-two consecutive outpatients undergoing MRI examinations at a single center were prospectively included. Radiological reports of the patients were drafted by two radiologists in consensus using only the clinical information that was made available by the referring physicians. Thereafter, one radiologist talked directly with the patient and recorded the duration of the conversation. Afterwards, the additional information from the patient was used to reevaluate the imaging studies in consensus. The radiologists determined whether the radiological report changed based on additional information and, if yes, to what extent. The degree of change was graded on a 4-point Likert scale (1, non-relevant findings, to 4, highly relevant findings). RESULTS: Following direct communication (duration 170.9 ± 53.9 s), the radiological reports of 52 patients (42.6%) were changed. Of the 52 patients, the degree of change was classified as grade 1 for 8 patients (15.4 %), grade 2 for 27 patients (51.9%), grade 3 for 13 patients (25%), and grade 4 for 4 patients (7.7%). The reasons leading to changes were missing clinical information in 50 cases (96.2%) and the lack of additional external imaging in 2 cases (3.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Radiologists should be aware that a lack of accurate information from the clinician can lead to incorrect radiological reports or diagnosis. Radiologists should communicate directly with patients, especially when the provided information is unclear, as it may significantly alter the radiological report. KEY POINTS: • Direct communication between radiologists and patients for an average of 170's resulted in a change in the radiological reports of 52 patients (42.6%). • Of the 42.6% of cases where the reports were changed, the alterations were highly relevant (grades 3 and 4) in 32.7%, indicating major changes with significant impact towards patient management.
OBJECTIVES: We investigate in what percentage of cases and to what extent radiological reports change when radiologists directly communicate with patients after imaging examinations. METHODS: One hundred twenty-two consecutive outpatients undergoing MRI examinations at a single center were prospectively included. Radiological reports of the patients were drafted by two radiologists in consensus using only the clinical information that was made available by the referring physicians. Thereafter, one radiologist talked directly with the patient and recorded the duration of the conversation. Afterwards, the additional information from the patient was used to reevaluate the imaging studies in consensus. The radiologists determined whether the radiological report changed based on additional information and, if yes, to what extent. The degree of change was graded on a 4-point Likert scale (1, non-relevant findings, to 4, highly relevant findings). RESULTS: Following direct communication (duration 170.9 ± 53.9 s), the radiological reports of 52 patients (42.6%) were changed. Of the 52 patients, the degree of change was classified as grade 1 for 8 patients (15.4 %), grade 2 for 27 patients (51.9%), grade 3 for 13 patients (25%), and grade 4 for 4 patients (7.7%). The reasons leading to changes were missing clinical information in 50 cases (96.2%) and the lack of additional external imaging in 2 cases (3.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Radiologists should be aware that a lack of accurate information from the clinician can lead to incorrect radiological reports or diagnosis. Radiologists should communicate directly with patients, especially when the provided information is unclear, as it may significantly alter the radiological report. KEY POINTS: • Direct communication between radiologists and patients for an average of 170's resulted in a change in the radiological reports of 52 patients (42.6%). • Of the 42.6% of cases where the reports were changed, the alterations were highly relevant (grades 3 and 4) in 32.7%, indicating major changes with significant impact towards patient management.
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