Evidence‐based guideline for the written radiology report: Methods, recommendations and implementation challenges

Goergen, Stacy; Pool, Felicity; Turner, Tari; Grimm, Jane; Appleyard, Mark; Crock, Carmel; Fahey, Michael; Fay, Michael; Ferris, Nicholas J.; Liew, Susan; Perry, Richard D; Revell, Ann; Russell, Grant; Wang, Shih-Chang S C; Wriedt, Christian

doi:10.1111/1754-9485.12014

Cited by 31 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The RANZCR guidelines make direct reference to readability, which appears to be used interchangeably with the notion of clarity. However, this is not clearly defined in the guidelines or the papers on which the guidelines were based [12,17,18]. One guideline suggests including 'a conclusion or summary of the key findings in the clinical context' [13].…”

Section: Discussion Of Clinical Certaintymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The RCR guidelines state 'the purpose of a radiology report is to provide an accurate interpretation of images in a format that will prompt appropriate care for the patient' [13], and the RANZCR guidelines acknowledge the radiology report '…has an important impact on decisions about further investigation and management. Its form and content can be influential in reducing harm to patients…' [12]. With increasing accessibility of sensitive imaging modalities such as CT and MRI, the likelihood of identifying unexpected or incidental anatomical abnormalities has increased.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A recent evidence-based guideline for the written radiology report that included a literature review, multi-disciplinary panel and public consultation [12] and which informed the RANZCR guidelines [12] was used as a template to extract recommendations for each guideline. This template can be grouped into four broad areas: technical information (patient demographics, comparison with prior studies, technique, procedural information, report status and examination quality), content (clinical information, relevant or abnormal findings, normal findings, addressing the clinical question, differential diagnosis, conclusion, recommendations for further testing or treatment and any discrepancy documentation), format (length, structured reporting, terminology for referring clinicians and patients, accuracy and 'actionable' reporting) and language (conveying confidence and certainty, clarity and readability).…”

Section: Data Extraction and Synthesismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The RANZCR guidelines state 'development was initially achieved by a multi-disciplinary team using a transparent and documented process of integration of evidence with expert opinion'. This is presumed to refer to an initial literature review [17] which informed a project managed by RANZCR resulting in an evidencebased guideline for the written radiology report [12]. The most recent RANZCR guidelines, included in this review [7], were preceded by an online survey of clinical radiologists with updates to the previous version clearly identified [18].…”

Section: Guideline Development Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Enhancing clinician and patient understanding of radiology reports: a scoping review of international guidelines

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Imaging reports are the primary method of communicating diagnostic imaging findings between the radiologist and the referring clinician. Guidelines produced by professional bodies provide guidance on content and format of imaging reports, but the extent to which they consider comprehensibility for referring clinicians and their patients is unclear. The objective of this review was to determine the extent to which radiology reporting guidelines consider comprehensibility of imaging reports for referring clinicians and patients. We performed a scoping review of English-language diagnostic imaging reporting guidelines. We searched electronic databases (OVID MEDLINE, Embase) and websites of radiological professional organisations to identify guidelines. The extent to which the guidelines recommended essential report features such as technical information, content, format and language, as well as features to enhance comprehensibility, such as lay language summaries, was recorded. Six guidelines from professional bodies representing radiologists from the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, Hong Kong, the UK and Europe were identified from the search. Inconsistencies exist between guidelines in their recommendations, and they rarely consider that patients may read the report. No guideline made recommendations about the reporting of results considering the clinical context, and none recommended features preferred by patients such as lay language summaries. This review identifies an opportunity for future radiology reporting guidelines to give greater consideration to referring clinician and patient preferences.

show abstract

Section: Discussion Of Clinical Certaintymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Data Extraction and Synthesismentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Guideline Development Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Enhancing clinician and patient understanding of radiology reports: a scoping review of international guidelines

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists (RANZCR) initially issued its Radiology Written Report Guideline in 2011 . The original guideline was based on a systematic review of the literature, a practitioner survey, public consultation and the consensus of a multidisciplinary panel.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

New RANZCR clinical radiology written report guidelines

Pool

Siemienowicz

2018

J Med Imag Rad Onc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists (RANZCR) Radiology Written Report Guideline was first issued in 2011. A survey-based consultation of clinical radiology members of the college in 2015 found that the vast majority of 235 respondents supported all components of the guideline. Since the original guideline was developed, considerable new research has been published about radiology reporting, particularly regarding structured/ template reports. In 2016/17 a RANZCR working group used the consultation results, stakeholder feedback and recent research to develop revised guidelines. This article outlines the consultation survey results and guideline revision process as well as some of the supporting evidence from the literature.

show abstract

IMPACT (Information Medically Pertinent in Acute Computed Tomography) requests: Delphi study to develop criteria standards for adequate clinical information in computed tomography requests in the Australian emergency department

Castillo

Steffens

Livesay

et al. 2022

J of Medical Radiation Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Inadequate clinical information in medical imaging requests negatively affects the clinical relevance of imaging performed and the quality of resultant radiology reports. Currently, there are no published Australian guidelines on what constitutes adequate clinical information in computed tomography (CT) requests. This study aimed to determine specific items of clinical information radiologists require in CT requests for acute chest, abdomen and blunt trauma examinations, to support optimal reporting. Methods A panel of 24 CT‐reporting consultant radiologists participated in this e‐Delphi consensus study. Panellists undertook multiple online survey rounds of open‐ended, dichotomous and Likert scale questions, receiving feedback following each. Round 1 responses formulated lists for each CT examination. Round 2 set a threshold of 80% agreement after dichotomous scoring. Round 3 accepted items which averaged 4 or more on a 5‐point Likert scale. Round 4 required panellists to rank items within the aggregated, accepted lists, based on panellists' perceived level of usefulness. Results The large numbers of round 1 items (chest: 101, abdomen: 76, blunt trauma: 80) were rationalised and grouped into categories to facilitate efficiency during subsequent rounds. Twenty‐three chest, 24 abdomen and 17 blunt trauma items met the 80% agreement threshold in round 2. Items below threshold were included in round 3; numbering 44, 19 and 23 for chest, abdomen and blunt trauma, respectively. Through the e‐Delphi process, we formulated clinical information criteria standards for three CT types. Conclusions The developed standards will guide Australian referrers in providing adequate clinical information in CT requests, to support optimal reporting, diagnosis and treatment.

show abstract

Evidence‐based guideline for the written radiology report: Methods, recommendations and implementation challenges

Cited by 31 publications

References 6 publications

Enhancing clinician and patient understanding of radiology reports: a scoping review of international guidelines

Enhancing clinician and patient understanding of radiology reports: a scoping review of international guidelines

New RANZCR clinical radiology written report guidelines

IMPACT (Information Medically Pertinent in Acute Computed Tomography) requests: Delphi study to develop criteria standards for adequate clinical information in computed tomography requests in the Australian emergency department

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About