Toward Improved Radiology Reporting Practices in the Emergency Department: A Survey of Emergency Department Physicians

Purpose: Improving reporting practices in the emergency department (ED) is important for optimized patient care. However, the preferences and opinions of ED physicians regarding many reporting practices are not well-known. Thus, we surveyed ED physicians to better understand their expectations and attitudes in regards to both traditional, non-routine, and non-traditional reporting practices. Materials and Methods: An online survey was distributed to all 41 ED physicians at our institution and responses were collected confidentially. Results: There was a 93% response rate (N=38). The majority of respondents were satisfied with radiology reporting, the language used in reports, their ability to contact a radiologist, and recommendations in the report. Turn-around times were cited as the most significant problem with radiology reporting. A turn-around time of within 60 minutes was found to be appropriate for all imaging modalities. 92% of respondents felt that the ordering physician, rather than the radiologist, should deliver the results of an examination. ED physicians were divided about whether the standard report or a phone call was necessary for a variety of potentially urgent diagnoses. 74% of respondents feel medico-legally obligated by radiologist recommendations; although, this appears to be influenced by both the wording and location of the recommendation in the report. Conclusions: ED physicians were generally satisfied with most aspects of radiology reporting although room for improvement exists, particularly in turnaround times. ED physicians prefer to deliver the results of examinations themselves, feel medico-legally obligated by recommendations in the report, and have varied opinions regarding non-routine communication for potentially urgent diagnoses.

[1]  Kerri Palamara,et al.  Structured feedback from referring physicians: a novel approach to quality improvement in radiology reporting. , 2013, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[2]  David B. Larson,et al.  Practice policy and quality initiatives: decreasing variability in turnaround time for radiographic studies from the emergency department. , 2013, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[3]  Garry Choy,et al.  Recent measures to improve radiology reporting: perspectives from primary care physicians. , 2013, Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR.

[4]  Nabile M. Safdar,et al.  Handoffs between radiologists and patients: threat or opportunity? , 2011, Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR.

[5]  P. Parizel,et al.  The radiology report as seen by radiologists and referring clinicians: results of the COVER and ROVER surveys. , 2011, Radiology.

[6]  P. Westesson,et al.  Opportunities in IT Support of Workflow & Information Flow in the Emergency Department Digital Imaging Process , 2010, Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society ... Annual Meeting. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. Annual Meeting.

[7]  D. Paz The radiologist as a physician consultant. , 2010, Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR.

[8]  Arun Krishnaraj,et al.  Voice recognition software: effect on radiology report turnaround time at an academic medical center. , 2010, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[9]  Richard M. Frankel,et al.  Patient access to radiology reports: what do physicians think? , 2010, Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR.

[10]  Leonard Berlin,et al.  Failure of radiologic communication: An increasing cause of malpractice litigation and harm to patients , 2010, Applied Radiology.

[11]  A. Elster Insight From Patients for Radiologists: Improving Our Reporting Systems , 2010 .

[12]  F M Grieve,et al.  Radiology reporting: a general practitioner's perspective. , 2010, The British journal of radiology.

[13]  H. Hammerman Communicating imaging results to patients: OnSite results. , 2009, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[14]  A. Plumb,et al.  Survey of hospital clinicians' preferences regarding the format of radiology reports. , 2009, Clinical radiology.

[15]  P. Harris,et al.  Research electronic data capture (REDCap) - A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support , 2009, J. Biomed. Informatics.

[16]  Brendan Hogan,et al.  Significant savings in radiologic report turnaround time after implementation of a complete picture archiving and communication system (PACS) , 2009, Journal of Digital Imaging.

[17]  Keith Dreyer,et al.  Do picture archiving and communication systems improve Report turnaround times? , 2009, Journal of Digital Imaging.

[18]  T. Slovis The art of communication: strategies to improve patient and information flow , 2008, Pediatric Radiology.

[19]  B. Coughlin,et al.  Process modification and emergency department radiology service , 2008, Emergency Radiology.

[20]  G. Boland Voice recognition technology for radiology reporting: transforming the radiologist's value proposition. , 2007, Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR.

[21]  Janice C. Honeyman-Buck,et al.  Free text versus structured format: information transfer efficiency of radiology reports. , 2005, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[22]  R. J. Brenner,et al.  Communication errors in radiology: a liability cost analysis. , 2005, Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR.

[23]  L. Liberman,et al.  Style guidelines for radiology reporting: a manner of speaking. , 2003, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[24]  David B. Hayt,et al.  Filmless in 60 Days: The Impact of Picture Archiving and Communications Systems Within a Large Urban Hospital , 2001, Journal of Digital Imaging.

[25]  A Hanbidge,et al.  Radiology reports: examining radiologist and clinician preferences regarding style and content. , 2001, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[26]  W. Ambrosius,et al.  Radiology reporting in an academic children's hospital: what referring physicians think , 2000, Pediatric Radiology.

[27]  H. Kessler The contemporary radiologist: consultant or film reader? , 1997, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[28]  S. Siegel,et al.  A recommendation on recommendations. , 1997, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[29]  R. Mcloughlin,et al.  Radiology reports: how much descriptive detail is enough? , 1995, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[30]  E. Potchen,et al.  Readability of the radiologic report. , 1992, Investigative radiology.

[31]  B J Hillman,et al.  Radiology reporting: attitudes of referring physicians. , 1988, Radiology.

[32]  M. Lafortune,et al.  The radiological report: what is useful for the referring physician? , 1988, Canadian Association of Radiologists journal = Journal l'Association canadienne des radiologistes.

[33]  H. Fischer EDITORIALS: Better Communication between the Referring Physician and the Radiologist , 1983 .