Purpose: To assess the interobserver variability between chest radiologists in the interpretation of the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) expert consensus statement reporting guidelines in patients with suspected coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia in a setting with limited reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction testing availability. Methods: Chest computed tomography (CT) studies in 303 consecutive patients with suspected COVID-19 were reviewed by 3 fellowship-trained chest radiologists. Cases were assigned an impression of typical, indeterminate, atypical, or negative for COVID-19 pneumonia according to the RSNA expert consensus statement reporting guidelines, and interobserver analysis was performed. Objective CT features associated with COVID-19 pneumonia and distribution of findings were recorded. Results: The Fleiss kappa for all observers was almost perfect for typical (0.815), atypical (0.806), and negative (0.962) COVID-19 appearances ( P < .0001) and substantial (0.636) for indeterminate COVID-19 appearance ( P < .0001). Using Cramer V analysis, there were very strong correlations between all radiologists’ interpretations, statistically significant for all (typical, indeterminate, atypical, and negative) COVID-19 appearances ( P < .001). Objective CT imaging findings were recorded in similar percentages of typical cases by all observers. Conclusion: The RSNA expert consensus statement on reporting chest CT findings related to COVID-19 demonstrates substantial to almost perfect interobserver agreement among chest radiologists in a relatively large cohort of patients with clinically suspected COVID-19. It therefore serves as a reliable reference framework for radiologists to accurately communicate their level of suspicion based on the presence of evidence-based objective findings.

Purpose: The RSNA expert consensus statement and CO-RADS reporting system assist radiologists in describing lung imaging findings in a standardized manner in patients under investigation for COVID-19 pneumonia and provide clarity in communication with other healthcare providers. We aim to compare diagnostic performance and inter-/intra-observer among chest radiologists in the interpretation of RSNA and CO-RADS reporting systems and assess clinician preference. Methods: Chest CT scans of 279 patients with suspected COVID-19 who underwent RT-PCR testing were retrospectively and independently examined by 3 chest radiologists who assigned interpretation according to the RSNA and CO-RADS reporting systems. Inter-/intra-observer analysis was performed. Diagnostic accuracy of both reporting systems was calculated. 60 clinicians participated in a survey to assess end-user preference of the reporting systems. Results: Both systems demonstrated almost perfect inter-observer agreement (Fleiss kappa 0.871, P < 0.0001 for RSNA; 0.876, P < 0.0001 for CO-RADS impressions). Intra-observer agreement between the 2 scoring systems using the equivalent categories was almost perfect (Fleiss kappa 0.90-0.92, P < 0.001). Positive predictive values were high, 0.798-0.818 for RSNA and 0.891-0.903 CO-RADS. Negative predictive value were similar, 0.573-0.585 for RSNA and 0.573-0.58 for CO-RADS. Specificity differed between the 2 systems, 68-73% for CO-RADS and 52-58% for RSNA with superior specificity of CO-RADS. Of 60 survey participants, the majority preferred the RSNA reporting system rather than CO-RADS for all options provided (66.7-76.7%; P < 0.05). Conclusions: RSNA and CO-RADS reporting systems are consistent and reproducible with near perfect inter-/intra-observer agreement and excellent positive predictive value. End-users preferred the reporting language in the RSNA system.

Purpose: To assess the pattern of result communication that occurs between radiologists and referring physicians in the emergency department setting. Methods: An institutional review board–approved prospective study was performed at a large academic medical center with 24/7 emergency radiology cover. Emergency radiologists logged information regarding all result-reporting communication events that occurred over a 168-hour period. Results: A total of 286 independent result communication events occurred during the study period, the vast majority of which occurred via telephone (232/286). Emergency radiologists spent 10% of their working time communicating results. Similar amounts of time were spent discussing negative and positive cross-sectional imaging examinations. In a small minority of communication events, additional information was gathered through communication that resulted in a change of interpretation from a normal to an abnormal study. Conclusions: Effective and efficient result communication is critical to care delivery in the emergency department setting. Discussion regarding abnormal cases, both in person and over the phone, is encouraged. However, in the emergency setting, time spent on routine direct communication of negative examination results in advance of the final report may lead to increased disruptions, longer turnaround times, and negatively impact patient care. In very few instances, does the additional information gained from the communication event result in a change of interpretation?