Radiology report: what is the opinion of the referring physician?

Abstract

ObjectiveTo evaluate the opinion and perception of referring physicians regarding the radiology report, in order to develop tools that promote an improvement in its quality.Materials and MethodsWe prepared a questionnaire containing ten multiple choice questions about the radiology report, administering it to 70 physicians (35 specialists and 35 residents working in specialties other than radiology).ResultsReferring physicians (specialists and residents) showed a preference for structured reports, with a description explained in universal medical language and a complete conclusion listing the diagnostic possibilities with the degree of certainty. The examination technique should be described, and the final report is best presented when it contains the final chart, together with images, as hard copies and in digital format. The respondents also reported having confidence in the opinion of the radiologist and expressed the need for a direct channel of communication with the same.ConclusionReferring physicians seek detailed reports (including a description of the examination technique), preferably structured, with objective language and relevant conclusions (the position of the radiologist on the case is important). It is necessary to discuss the differential diagnoses and provide a form of contact between the parties. Although referring physicians consider the radiologist opinion relevant, they also want to analyze the images on their own.

Clinicians' Behavior Toward Radiology Reports: A Cross-Sectional Study

“…The study showed that 69% of clinicians read the entire report while only 33% of clinicians admitted to committing one or more medical errors that could have been prevented by reading the entire report [ 6 ]. Furthermore, a similar research study published in 2018, investigated the opinion of the referring physician with regards to the radiology report on 70 healthcare worker with 45.7% of which were clinicians [ 1 ]. The study reported that 55.7% of referring physicians read the radiology report in full, which is almost the same as our reported percentage of 56.1%.…”

“…The study showed that the majority of clinicians (70.5%) preferred if a recommendation section was provided at the end of the report, which would have helped them understand the report more [ 5 , 7 ]. This would significantly help clinicians easily reach the definitive diagnosis by combining the data of the radiology report with the clinical presentation and examination of each patient [ 1 , 8 , 9 ]. Based on the aforementioned observations, it is important to form a relevant and convenient conclusion section in the radiology report, given that a representative number of clinicians do not read the report fully, as we found in our research that 6.5% of the physician read only the conclusion.…”

“…This is a cross-sectional study, which was approved by the local ethics committee at King Abdul-Aziz University Hospital, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. A multiple-choice questionnaire was elicited and constructed from previous similar studies [ 1 , 5 , 6 ]. The questionnaire was distributed electronically using the SurveyMonkey website and was distributed through emails to the physicians from 16 various specialties.…”

“…It is also incorporated as a part of the patient’s medical records and plays an essential part in the way clinical care is approached. As the diagnostic process is becoming more complex, radiology reports take on an even more important role [ 1 ].…”

Visão do médico solicitante frente ao relatório radiológico: uma revisão narrativa

“…O laudo radiológico escrito é a principal forma de comunicação dos radiologistas e dos médicos solicitantes. Um médico solicitante, geralmente, só conhece o radiologista por seus relatórios e esse não sabe quem está recebendo os seus laudos, como eles são avaliados ou o que é esperado pelos médicos (IGNÁCIO FCGR, et al, 2018). Os relatórios são escritos na maioria das vezes utilizando texto livre, entretanto estudos sugerem que tal postura pode ser um obstáculo para a eficácia no atendimento ao paciente, pois eles, por responderem principalmente à questão clínica, acabam gerando reclamações dos solicitantes diante da falta de uniformização das informações obtidas (CAMILO DMR, et al, 2019; BARBOSA F, et al, 2010).…”