Enabling the Next-Generation Radiology Report: Description of Two New System Standards.

Currently, most radiology reports are highly variable and consist of unconstrained narrative text. This variability limits the ability to extract information from the report to guide clinical care, populate a data registry, or support quality improvement. This article introduces two newly available standards that pertain to radiology reports. Management of Radiology Reporting Templates (MRRT) is an integration profile that defines the format and exchange mechanisms for radiology report templates. Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine Part 20 defines how reports built using MRRT-based templates can be transmitted into an electronic health record (EHR). Together, these two standards enable new ways to improve report consistency and completeness, ensure proper clinical action, and improve the quality of patient care. Commercial and open-source developers are beginning to incorporate these standards into clinical systems. The authors use an example of a patient with an incidentally detected lung nodule to illustrate how these standards improve the exchange of information. The clinical scenario follows the use of the appropriate template through the completion of the radiology report, with the incidental finding structured and coded to enable automated follow-up in the EHR. ©RSNA, 2017.

[1]  Clement J. McDonald,et al.  Development of the Logical Observation Identifier Names and Codes (LOINC) vocabulary. , 1998, Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA.

[2]  Olivier Gevaert,et al.  Addition of MR imaging features and genetic biomarkers strengthens glioblastoma survival prediction in TCGA patients. , 2015, Journal of neuroradiology. Journal de neuroradiologie.

[3]  Daniel L. Rubin,et al.  Creating and Curating a Terminology for Radiology: Ontology Modeling and Analysis , 2008, Journal of Digital Imaging.

[4]  F. Hall,et al.  Language of the radiology report: primer for residents and wayward radiologists. , 2000, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[5]  Helen Parsons,et al.  Cancer Trials Versus the Real World in the United States , 2011, Annals of surgery.

[6]  C. McDonald,et al.  LOINC, a universal standard for identifying laboratory observations: a 5-year update. , 2003, Clinical chemistry.

[7]  R. Saunders,et al.  Best Care at Lower Cost: The Path to Continuously Learning Health Care in America , 2013 .

[8]  Charles E. Kahn,et al.  Conversion of Radiology Reporting Templates to the MRRT Standard , 2015, Journal of Digital Imaging.

[9]  T J Kline,et al.  Radiologists, communication, and Resolution 5: a medicolegal issue. , 1992, Radiology.

[10]  Don K. Dennison,et al.  REST Enabling the Report Template Library , 2013, Journal of Digital Imaging.

[11]  David W Bates,et al.  "I wish I had seen this test result earlier!": Dissatisfaction with test result management systems in primary care. , 2004, Archives of internal medicine.

[12]  C. Langlotz RadLex: a new method for indexing online educational materials. , 2006, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

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

[14]  Harlan M Krumholz,et al.  Participation in cancer clinical trials: race-, sex-, and age-based disparities. , 2004, JAMA.