Structured Reporting of CT Angiography Runoff Examinations of the Lower Extremities.

OBJECTIVES The aim was to evaluate the effect of structured reporting of computed tomography angiography (CTA) runoff studies on clarity, completeness, clinical relevance, usefulness of the radiology reports, further testing, and therapy in patients with known or suspected peripheral arterial disease. METHODS Conventional reports (CRs) and structured reports (SRs) were generated for 52 patients who had been examined with a CTA runoff examination of the lower extremities. The sample size was based on power calculations with a power of 95% and a significance level of .007 (adjusted for multiple testing). CRs were dictated in a free text form; SRs contained a consistent ordering of observations with standardised subheadings. CRs were compared with SRs. Two vascular medicine specialists and two vascular surgeons rated the reports regarding their satisfaction with clarity, completeness, clinical relevance, and usefulness as well as overall satisfaction. Additionally, they made hypothetical decisions on further testing and therapy. Median ratings were compared using the Wilcoxon signed rank test and generalised linear mixed effects models. RESULTS SRs received higher ratings for satisfaction with clarity (median rating 9.0 vs. 7.0, p < .0001) and completeness (median rating 9.0 vs. 7.5, p < .0001) and were judged to be of greater clinical relevance (median rating 9.0 vs. 8.0, p < .0001) and usefulness (median rating 9.0 vs. 8.0, p < .0001). Overall satisfaction was also higher for SRs (median rating 9.0 vs. 7.0, p < .0001) than CRs. There were no significant differences in further testing or therapy. CONCLUSION Referring clinicians perceive SRs of CTA runoff examinations of the lower extremities as offering superior clarity, completeness, clinical relevance, and usefulness than CRs. Structured reporting does not appear to alter further testing or therapy in patients with known or suspected peripheral arterial disease.

[1]  C. E. Kahn,et al.  From guidelines to practice: how reporting templates promote the use of radiology practice guidelines. , 2013, Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR.

[2]  H. Hricak,et al.  Improving Communication of Diagnostic Radiology Findings through Structured Reporting 1 , 2011 .

[3]  Bin Zhang,et al.  Creation and Implementation of Department-Wide Structured Reports: An Analysis of the Impact on Error Rate in Radiology Reports , 2014, Journal of Digital Imaging.

[4]  Miriam Havel,et al.  Structured reports of videofluoroscopic swallowing studies have the potential to improve overall report quality compared to free text reports , 2017, European Radiology.

[5]  Benjamin Littenberg,et al.  Cohort study of structured reporting compared with conventional dictation. , 2009, Radiology.

[6]  David L Weiss,et al.  Structured reporting: patient care enhancement or productivity nightmare? , 2008, Radiology.

[7]  E. Halpern,et al.  Targeted biopsy of the prostate: the impact of color Doppler imaging and elastography on prostate cancer detection and Gleason score. , 2007, Urology.

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

[9]  Osman Ratib,et al.  Structured reporting: a fusion reactor hungry for fuel , 2014, Insights into Imaging.

[10]  Curtis P Langlotz,et al.  A framework for improving radiology reporting. , 2005, Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR.

[11]  L. Lowe,et al.  Improvement in reporting skills of radiology residents with a structured reporting curriculum. , 2014, Academic radiology.

[12]  P. Pronovost,et al.  The checklist--a tool for error management and performance improvement. , 2006, Journal of critical care.

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

[14]  Gustav Andreisek,et al.  Consensus conference on core radiological parameters to describe lumbar stenosis - an initiative for structured reporting , 2014, European Radiology.

[15]  Keith J Dreyer,et al.  Errare humanum est: frequency of laterality errors in radiology reports. , 2009, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

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

[17]  B. Hamm,et al.  Evaluation of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System for the Detection of Prostate Cancer by the Results of Targeted Biopsy of the Prostate , 2014, Investigative radiology.

[18]  P. Marcovici,et al.  Journal Club: Structured radiology reports are more complete and more effective than unstructured reports. , 2014, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[19]  P. Kim,et al.  Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System v2014 With Gadoxetate Disodium–Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Validation of LI-RADS Category 4 and 5 Criteria , 2016, Investigative radiology.

[20]  Felix G. Meinel,et al.  Structured reporting of CT examinations in acute pulmonary embolism. , 2017, Journal of cardiovascular computed tomography.

[21]  E. Burnside,et al.  The ACR BI-RADS experience: learning from history. , 2009, Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR.

[22]  C. E. Kahn,et al.  Reporting initiative of the Radiological Society of North America: progress and new directions. , 2014, Radiology.

[23]  Ivan Pedrosa,et al.  Structured reporting of multiphasic CT for pancreatic cancer: potential effect on staging and surgical planning. , 2015, Radiology.

[24]  William R Jarnagin,et al.  Electronic synoptic operative reporting: assessing the reliability and completeness of synoptic reports for pancreatic resection. , 2010, Journal of the American College of Surgeons.