Evaluation of guided reporting: quality and reading time of automatically generated radiology report in breast magnetic resonance imaging using a dedicated software solution.

Abstract

Purpose: Unstructured, free-text dictation (FT), the current standard in breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) reporting, is considered time-consuming and prone to error. The purpose of this study is to assess the usability and performance of a novel, software-based guided reporting (GR) strategy in breast MRI.

Methods: Eighty examinations previously evaluated for a clinical indication (e.g., mass and focus/non-mass enhancement) with FT were reevaluated by three specialized radiologists using GR. Each radiologist had a different number of cases (R1, n = 24; R2, n = 20; R3, n = 36). Usability was assessed by subjective feedback, and quality was assessed by comparing the completeness of automatically generated GR reports with that of their FT counterparts. Errors in GR were categorized and analyzed for debugging with a final software version. Combined reading and reporting times and learning curves were analyzed.

Results: Usability was rated high by all readers. No non-sense, omission/commission, or translational errors were detected with the GR method. Spelling and grammar errors were observed in 3/80 patient reports (3.8%) with GR (exclusively in the discussion section) and in 36/80 patient reports (45%) with FT. Between FT and GR, 41 patient reports revealed no content differences, 33 revealed minor differences, and 6 revealed major differences that resulted in changes in treatment. The errors in all patient reports with major content differences were categorized as content omission errors caused by improper software operation (n = 2) or by missing content in software v. 0.8 displayable with v. 1.7 (n = 4). The mean combined reading and reporting time was 576 s (standard deviation: 327 s; min: 155 s; max: 1,517 s). The mean times for each reader were 485, 557, and 754 s, and the respective learning curves evaluated by regression models revealed statistically significant slopes (P = 0.002; P = 0.0002; P < 0.0001). Overall times were shorter compared with external references that used FT. The mean combined reading and reporting time of MRI examinations using FT was 1,043 s and decreased by 44.8% with GR.

Conclusion: GR allows for complete reporting with minimized error rates and reduced combined reading and reporting times. The streamlining of the process (evidenced by lower reading times) for the readers in this study proves that GR can be learned quickly. Reducing reporting errors leads to fewer therapeutic faults and lawsuits against radiologists. It is known that delays in radiology reporting hinder early treatment and lead to poorer patient outcomes.

Clinical significance: While the number of scans and images per examination is continuously rising, staff shortages create a bottleneck in radiology departments. The IT-based GR method can be a major boon, improving radiologist efficiency, report quality, and the quality of simultaneously generated data.