Bridget Kowalczyk, Phil Ramis, Andrew Hillman, Regan City, Elizabeth Stukins, Krishna Nallamshetty, Eric M Rohren
{"title":"放射学报告偏好:转诊医生想要什么?","authors":"Bridget Kowalczyk, Phil Ramis, Andrew Hillman, Regan City, Elizabeth Stukins, Krishna Nallamshetty, Eric M Rohren","doi":"10.1016/j.acra.2024.09.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Rationale and objectives: </strong>To investigate and discern if preferences and expectations regarding the stylistics of the radiology report varied across roles, specialties, and practice location amongst referring providers.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A total of 579 referring clinicians were invited to complete our survey electronically and were asked to identify themselves as either physicians or advanced practice providers (APPs), specify their specialty, and primary practice environment. They were asked to rank the three reports on appearance, formatting, level of detail, and overall preference, with additional queries about their preferences regarding literature citation inclusions and placement of dose reduction statements.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>477 surveys were completed and returned for analysis, resulting in an 82.2% response rate. The most preferred reporting style was the blended report (62.5%), followed by the narrative report (18.9%) and the highly templated report (18.7%), respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in the most preferred reporting style between provider types (F(1, 475) = [0.69], p = 0.4067), between different practice settings (F(2, 474) = [2.32], p = 0.0995), and between different medical specialties (F(5, 471) = [2.23], p = 0.051). Among the three report styles, blended reporting received the highest satisfaction scores overall. The highly templated report was rated lowest for appearance and detail, while narrative reports received moderate satisfaction scores for appearance and detail. A majority favored inclusion of literature citations and similarly, the placement of dose-optimization statements at the end of the report. Preferences were consistent across specialties and practice settings.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This survey highlights that a majority of clinicians across a variety of specialties prefer a mix of structured reporting with narrative elements. The standardization of required metrics included in the radiology report may have far-reaching consequences for future reimbursement.</p>","PeriodicalId":50928,"journal":{"name":"Academic Radiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Radiology Reporting Preferences: What Do Referring Clinicians Want?\",\"authors\":\"Bridget Kowalczyk, Phil Ramis, Andrew Hillman, Regan City, Elizabeth Stukins, Krishna Nallamshetty, Eric M Rohren\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.acra.2024.09.006\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Rationale and objectives: </strong>To investigate and discern if preferences and expectations regarding the stylistics of the radiology report varied across roles, specialties, and practice location amongst referring providers.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A total of 579 referring clinicians were invited to complete our survey electronically and were asked to identify themselves as either physicians or advanced practice providers (APPs), specify their specialty, and primary practice environment. They were asked to rank the three reports on appearance, formatting, level of detail, and overall preference, with additional queries about their preferences regarding literature citation inclusions and placement of dose reduction statements.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>477 surveys were completed and returned for analysis, resulting in an 82.2% response rate. The most preferred reporting style was the blended report (62.5%), followed by the narrative report (18.9%) and the highly templated report (18.7%), respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in the most preferred reporting style between provider types (F(1, 475) = [0.69], p = 0.4067), between different practice settings (F(2, 474) = [2.32], p = 0.0995), and between different medical specialties (F(5, 471) = [2.23], p = 0.051). Among the three report styles, blended reporting received the highest satisfaction scores overall. The highly templated report was rated lowest for appearance and detail, while narrative reports received moderate satisfaction scores for appearance and detail. A majority favored inclusion of literature citations and similarly, the placement of dose-optimization statements at the end of the report. Preferences were consistent across specialties and practice settings.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This survey highlights that a majority of clinicians across a variety of specialties prefer a mix of structured reporting with narrative elements. The standardization of required metrics included in the radiology report may have far-reaching consequences for future reimbursement.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50928,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Academic Radiology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Academic Radiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2024.09.006\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Academic Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2024.09.006","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
理论依据和目标:调查并确定不同角色、专业和执业地点的转诊医生对放射报告文体的偏好和期望是否存在差异:我们共邀请了 579 位转诊临床医生通过电子方式完成调查,并要求他们表明自己是医生或高级医疗服务提供者 (APP),说明自己的专业和主要执业环境。他们被要求对三份报告的外观、格式、详细程度和总体偏好进行排序,并询问他们对文献引用和减少剂量声明位置的偏好:共有 477 份调查问卷完成并返回进行分析,回复率为 82.2%。最受欢迎的报告风格是混合报告(62.5%),其次分别是叙述报告(18.9%)和高度模板化报告(18.7%)。不同医疗服务提供者类型之间(F(1, 475) = [0.69], p = 0.4067)、不同医疗机构之间(F(2, 474) = [2.32], p = 0.0995)以及不同医学专业之间(F(5, 471) = [2.23], p = 0.051)在最喜欢的报告风格上没有明显的统计学差异。在三种报告风格中,混合报告的总体满意度得分最高。高度模板化的报告在外观和细节方面得分最低,而叙述式报告在外观和细节方面的满意度得分中等。大多数人赞成在报告中引用文献,同样,也赞成在报告末尾加入剂量优化说明。不同专业和执业环境的偏好是一致的:这项调查表明,不同专科的大多数临床医生都倾向于将结构化报告与叙述性内容相结合。放射学报告中所要求的指标标准化可能会对未来的报销产生深远影响。
Radiology Reporting Preferences: What Do Referring Clinicians Want?
Rationale and objectives: To investigate and discern if preferences and expectations regarding the stylistics of the radiology report varied across roles, specialties, and practice location amongst referring providers.
Materials and methods: A total of 579 referring clinicians were invited to complete our survey electronically and were asked to identify themselves as either physicians or advanced practice providers (APPs), specify their specialty, and primary practice environment. They were asked to rank the three reports on appearance, formatting, level of detail, and overall preference, with additional queries about their preferences regarding literature citation inclusions and placement of dose reduction statements.
Results: 477 surveys were completed and returned for analysis, resulting in an 82.2% response rate. The most preferred reporting style was the blended report (62.5%), followed by the narrative report (18.9%) and the highly templated report (18.7%), respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in the most preferred reporting style between provider types (F(1, 475) = [0.69], p = 0.4067), between different practice settings (F(2, 474) = [2.32], p = 0.0995), and between different medical specialties (F(5, 471) = [2.23], p = 0.051). Among the three report styles, blended reporting received the highest satisfaction scores overall. The highly templated report was rated lowest for appearance and detail, while narrative reports received moderate satisfaction scores for appearance and detail. A majority favored inclusion of literature citations and similarly, the placement of dose-optimization statements at the end of the report. Preferences were consistent across specialties and practice settings.
Conclusion: This survey highlights that a majority of clinicians across a variety of specialties prefer a mix of structured reporting with narrative elements. The standardization of required metrics included in the radiology report may have far-reaching consequences for future reimbursement.
期刊介绍:
Academic Radiology publishes original reports of clinical and laboratory investigations in diagnostic imaging, the diagnostic use of radioactive isotopes, computed tomography, positron emission tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, digital subtraction angiography, image-guided interventions and related techniques. It also includes brief technical reports describing original observations, techniques, and instrumental developments; state-of-the-art reports on clinical issues, new technology and other topics of current medical importance; meta-analyses; scientific studies and opinions on radiologic education; and letters to the Editor.