| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
1 All authors: Department of Medical Imaging, Toronto General Hospital, University Health Network, 200 Elizabeth St., Toronto, Ontario M5G 2C4, Canada.
OBJECTIVE. The introduction of picture archiving and communication systems (PACS) frequently includes the option of computer-generated itemized reports. This motivated us to reassess the merits of traditional prose dictated reports. This study examines radiologist and clinician preferences regarding report style and content.
MATERIALS AND METHODS. The study was conducted in two parts. The first part was a retrospective audit of existing medical imaging prose reports to determine their content. The second part comprised a questionnaire containing three mock clinical scenarios. Three pairs of reports were provided for each scenario, with only essential information in the first pair, some optional information in the second, and the most complete report in the third. Each pair consisted of a prose and itemized report with identical content. Participants ranked reports by preference and were asked specific questions regarding report content. The questionnaires were mailed to referring clinicians and administered during an interactive forum to staff radiologists, radiology fellows, and radiology residents.
RESULTS. The audit of existing reports showed a wide variation in all fields with consistency limited to a given radiologist. Responses to the questionnaire showed that, in general, a majority of radiologists and referring clinicians preferred itemized reports. The itemized report with the most detailed content was ranked highest of all three scenarios.
CONCLUSION. Prose reports foster a lack of standardization of content among different radiologists. Itemized reports facilitate complete documentation of information and measurements and are more popular with both radiologists and referring clinicians.
CiteULike 
Complore 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Reddit 
Technorati What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  A. J. Johnson, M. Y. M. Chen, J. S. Swan, K. E. Applegate, and B. Littenberg Cohort Study of Structured Reporting Compared with Conventional Dictation Radiology, October 1, 2009; 253(1): 74 - 80. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. M. Hall The Radiology Report of the Future Radiology, May 1, 2009; 251(2): 313 - 316. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. L. Weiss and C. P. Langlotz Structured Reporting: Patient Care Enhancement or Productivity Nightmare? Radiology, December 1, 2008; 249(3): 739 - 747. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 B. Reiner and E. Siegel Radiology reporting: returning to our image-centric roots. Am. J. Roentgenol., November 1, 2006; 187(5): 1151 - 1155. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. Berlin Replacing traditional text radiology reports with image-centric reports: a shift from epiphany to enigma? Am. J. Roentgenol., November 1, 2006; 187(5): 1156 - 1159. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Ondategui-Parra, S. M. Erturk, and P. R. Ros Survey of the use of quality indicators in academic radiology departments. Am. J. Roentgenol., November 1, 2006; 187(5): W451 - W455. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. L. Sistrom and J. Honeyman-Buck Free Text Versus Structured Format: Information Transfer Efficiency of Radiology Reports Am. J. Roentgenol., September 1, 2005; 185(3): 804 - 812. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. P. Langlotz Automatic Structuring of Radiology Reports: Harbinger of a Second Information Revolution in Radiology Radiology, July 1, 2002; 224(1): 5 - 7. [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. Berlin Relying on the Radiologist Am. J. Roentgenol., July 1, 2002; 179(1): 43 - 46. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. F. Rogers Information Transfer: Radiology Reports Am. J. Roentgenol., March 1, 2001; 176(3): 573 - 573. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
