Structured reporting has the potential to reduce reporting times of dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry exams

Abstract

Background: In recent years, structured reporting has been shown to be beneficial with regard to report completeness and clinical decision-making as compared to free-text reports (FTR). However, the impact of structured reporting on reporting efficiency has not been thoroughly evaluted yet. The aim of this study was to compare reporting times and report quality of structured reports (SR) to conventional free-text reports of dualenergy x-ray absorptiometry exams (DXA). Methods: FTRs and SRs of DXA were retrospectively generated by 2 radiology residents and 2 final-year medical students. Time was measured from the first view of the exam until the report was saved. A random sample of DXA reports was selected and sent to 2 referring physicians for further evaluation of report quality. Results: A total of 104 DXA reports (both FTRs and SRs) were generated and 48 randomly selected reports were evaluated by referring physicians. Reporting times were shorter for SRs in both radiology residents and medical students with median reporting times of 2.7 min (residents: 2.7, medical students: 2.7) for SRs and 6.1 min (residents: 5.0, medical students: 7.5) for FTRs. Information extraction was perceived to be significantly easier from SRs vs FTRs (P < 0.001). SRs were rated to answer the clinical question significantly better than FTRs (P < 0.007). Overall report quality was rated significantly higher for SRs compared to FTRs (P < 0.001) with 96% of SRs vs 79% of FTRs receiving high or very high-quality ratings. All readers except for one resident preferred structured reporting over free-text reporting and both referring clinicians preferred SRs over FTRs for DXA. Conclusions: Template-based structured reporting of DXA might lead to shorter reporting times and increased report quality.

Structured Reporting Using CEUS LI-RADS for the Diagnosis of Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC)—Impact and Advantages on Report Integrity, Quality and Interdisciplinary Communication

“…However, these findings need to be further validated in further studies. The overall preference of SR compared to FTR by referring physicians is in line with results from previous publications on various imaging modalities such as computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging and x-ray [ 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 26 ]. One publication on the value of SR compared to FTR in conventional head and neck ultrasound showed similar results [ 14 ].…”

“…Therefore, high accuracy and integrity of CEUS reports are essential for patient management and adequate clinical decision-making. Recently, several studies have shown that using SR can improve quality, accuracy and integrity of radiology reports compared to FTR in various medical imaging modalities [ 14 , 16 , 18 , 21 , 26 ].…”

“…While clinicians seem to profit from SR, since extracting critical information from radiology reports becomes less time-consuming, it remains unclear if SR also leads to decreased reporting times for radiologists. Some studies reported improved time-efficiency by using SR, whereas other authors described prolonged reporting times for the use of SR compared to FTR [ 18 , 22 , 27 , 28 ]. However, it remains to be noted that all of these studies followed a similar pattern and compared conventional narrative reporting to reports created by template-based software with clickable decision trees only.…”

“…Various studies on different medical imaging modalities have shown that SR can facilitate clinical decision-making by improving the quality, accuracy and integrity of radiology reports, and reduce reporting times. Therefore, both radiologists and referring physicians favored SR over FTR in these studies [ 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 ]. Especially when used by inexperienced residents, SR may lead to more thorough and comprehensive reports [ 19 , 20 , 21 ].…”

Structured Reporting in the Characterization of Renal Cysts by Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS) Using the Bosniak Classification System—Improvement of Report Quality and Interdisciplinary Communication

“…Over the past years, several leading radiological societies recommended using structured reporting (SR) rather than conventional free-text reporting (FTR) in order to standardize radiologic reporting and improve report quality and interdisciplinary communication [ 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 ]. Previous studies on the impact of SR using various diagnostic imaging modalities indicated that SR can lead to higher satisfaction levels of referring physicians by improving the integrity, readability, and overall quality of radiologic reports [ 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 ]. However, few contradictory studies pointed out potential disadvantages of SR including possible oversimplification or reduced diagnostic accuracy of radiologic reports [ 16 , 25 , 26 ].…”