Survey of hospital clinicians' preferences regarding the format of radiology reports

被引:85
作者
Plumb, A. A. O. [1 ]
Grieve, F. M. [1 ]
Khan, S. H. [1 ]
机构
[1] E Lancashire Hosp NHS Trust, Blackburn BB2 3HH, Lancs, England
关键词
D O I
10.1016/j.crad.2008.11.009
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
AIM: To determine hospital consultants' preferences for the format and content of radiology reports. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety-nine questionnaires were sent to consultant staff with responsibility for requesting ultrasound examinations. The participants were invited to rank a variety of hypothetical reports in order of preference. They were also asked whether they felt other commonly included features of a radiology report were of value. Rank data were analysed by the Friedman statistic, Fisher's multiple comparisons least significant difference test, and the Kemeny-Young method. RESULTS: Forty-nine responses were received. There was a preference for more detailed reports that included a clinical comment by the radiologist, for both normal and abnormal results (p < 0.05). Reports presented in tables were preferred. The combination of a detailed tabular report with a radiologist's comment was the most popular single structure, preferred by 43% of respondents for normal reports and 51% for abnormal reports. CONCLUSION: Detailed reports with a radiologists' comment are preferred to briefer reports, even for normal examinations. Tabular reports are preferred to prose, with the combination of a detailed report presented in a tabular format accompanied by a radiologist's comment being the most preferred style. (C) 2008 The Royal College of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:386 / 394
页数:9
相关论文
共 12 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], DAEDALUS
[2]   Radiology reporting - where does the radiologist's duty end? [J].
Garvey, CH ;
Connolly, S .
LANCET, 2006, 367 (9508) :443-445
[3]  
GRIEVE FM, 2008, P UK RAD C 2008 2 4
[4]  
LAFORTUNE M, 1988, J CAN ASSOC RADIOL, V39, P140
[5]   RADIOLOGY REPORTS - HOW MUCH DESCRIPTIVE DETAIL IS ENOUGH [J].
MCLOUGHLIN, RF ;
SO, CB ;
GRAY, RR ;
BRANDT, R .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 1995, 165 (04) :803-806
[6]   Radiology reports: Examining radiologist and clinician preferences regarding style and content [J].
Naik, SS ;
Hanbidge, A ;
Wilson, SR .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2001, 176 (03) :591-598
[7]   VOTING PROCEDURES - A SUMMARY ANALYSIS [J].
NURMI, H .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, 1983, 13 (APR) :181-208
[8]   Computer-based speech recognition as a replacement for medical transcription [J].
Rosenthal, DI ;
Chew, FS ;
Dupuy, DE ;
Kattapuram, SV ;
Palmer, WE ;
Yap, RM ;
Levine, LA .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 1998, 170 (01) :23-25
[9]  
Sistrom Chris L, 2005, J Am Coll Radiol, V2, P159, DOI 10.1016/j.jacr.2004.06.015
[10]   Free text versus structured format: Information transfer efficiency of radiology reports [J].
Sistrom, CL ;
Honeyman-Buck, J .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2005, 185 (03) :804-812