Files
Download Full Text (3.5 MB)
Description
Radiological reports are a crucial part of patient care and management. Radiologists play a major role in patient care by interpreting imaging studies and making recommendations to referring physicians. 1,2,3 Although some physicians may prefer to initially interpret the imaging studies by themselves, radiologists’ reports have been shown to be significantly more accurate and detailed, which ultimately results in better patient care. 1,4,5,3 Thus it is important for radiology reports to be timely and as accurate as possible to improve overall patient care. The clarity of communication between radiologists and referring physicians in these reports remains an important factor in delivering quality care to patients.
Traditionally, radiology reports were created using free-text, narrative language. 1 In the last decade, however, radiology reports have transitioned from more traditionally formatted reports to a more highly structured format. 5 Structured reports in radiology are not a novelty and have been utilized since 2007 when they were first recommended by representatives of American College of Radiology. 3 The newer formats typically rely on specific templates, and they may contain disease-specific, system based or anatomical headers, as well as a structured description of normal and common abnormal findings. 4 Since structured reports started being widely used, different types of clinicians and other report “consumers” expressed specific preferences regarding the measurements and report styles they find more appropriate. Additionally, there are certain standardized reporting criteria (such as RECIST, WHO or SWOG) that are utilized in the field of radiology to report progression of specific types of pathologies (tumors in this case). 6,7 These criteria are generally well received by the scientific community and numerous studies support their implementation and use in day-to-day reporting. 7 However, some drawbacks are typically identified with them in evaluating the identification of disease progression. 7 To add to that, in some cases these criteria are not easily applicable in certain types of pathologies.
Some are concerned that structured reports will result in commodification of radiology and will hinder the freedom and the “art” of the practice. 11 While allowing radiologists to add free text where possible can help them maintain autonomy in reporting, national standardization guidelines can contain multiple specific templates created by broad and interdisciplinary consensus, with room for variation.
Ultimately, it is important to consider the expectations of all the clinicians involved in patient care, in order to maximize the level of care that patients receive. Particularly in patients with serious conditions such as cancer. The aim of this study will be to assess both report structure and quantitative data representation preferences of key lung cancer care clinicians at our institution.
Publication Date
5-2024
Disciplines
Radiology
Recommended Citation
Melik D, Pouzar A, Brazier A, Al-Katib S. You’re testing my patients: clinicians’ preferences for structured reporting and measurement data. Poster presented at: Oakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine Embark Capstone Colloquium; 2024 May; Rochester Hills, MI.
Comments
The Embark Capstone Colloquium at the Oakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine, Rochester Hills, MI, May, 2024.