Effect of Template Reporting of Brain MRIs for Multiple Sclerosis on Report Thoroughness and Neurologist-Rated Quality: Results of a Prospective Quality Improvement Project

Abstract Purpose To assess the impact of structured reporting templates on the objective and subjective quality of radiology reports for brain MRIs in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). Methods A HIPAA-compliant prospective quality improvement initiative was undertaken to develop and implement a...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of the American College of Radiology 2017-03, Vol.14 (3), p.371-379.e1
Hauptverfasser: Dickerson, Elliot, MD, Davenport, Matthew S., MD, Syed, Faiz, MD, Stuve, Olaf, MD, PhD, Cohen, Jeffrey A., MD, Rinker, John R., MD, Goldman, Myla D., MD, Segal, Benjamin M., MD, Foerster, Bradley R., MD
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 379.e1
container_issue 3
container_start_page 371
container_title Journal of the American College of Radiology
container_volume 14
creator Dickerson, Elliot, MD
Davenport, Matthew S., MD
Syed, Faiz, MD
Stuve, Olaf, MD, PhD
Cohen, Jeffrey A., MD
Rinker, John R., MD
Goldman, Myla D., MD
Segal, Benjamin M., MD
Foerster, Bradley R., MD
description Abstract Purpose To assess the impact of structured reporting templates on the objective and subjective quality of radiology reports for brain MRIs in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). Methods A HIPAA-compliant prospective quality improvement initiative was undertaken to develop and implement a 12-item structured reporting template for brain MRI examinations in patients with known or suspected MS based on published guidelines. Reports created 1 year before implementing the template served as the baseline. A random sample of 10 template and 10 non-template reports was sent to five neurologists outside the study institution with MS expertise, who reviewed the reports for comprehensiveness and quality. The number of MS-relevant elements in template and non-template reports were compared with unpaired t tests. Proportions were compared with χ2 and Fisher exact tests. Results There were 63 reports in the pre-template period and 93 reports in the post-template period. Use of the template increased over time in the post-template period ( P  = .04). All 12 MS-relevant findings were addressed more often and with less variability in template reports: (11.1 ± 0.7 findings versus 5.8 ± 2.2 findings in non-template reports, P < .001). Neurologists were more likely to give the template reports the highest positive rating (56% [107/190] versus 28% [56/199], P < .001) and less likely to give the template reports a lower rating (7% [13/190] versus 15% [29/199], P  = .01) compared with the non-template reports. Conclusion Template reporting of brain MRI examinations increases the rate at which MS-relevant findings are included in the report. Standardized reports are preferred by neurologists with MS expertise.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.jacr.2016.09.037
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1847890031</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>1_s2_0_S1546144016309474</els_id><sourcerecordid>1847890031</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c455t-23bbf7875b399e75cc694c258a7d3cf5e4c481618ee40751f5f964a17fffbd9a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9Ustu1DAUjRCIlsIPsEBeskmwEyeOEUKCqsBILY_pILGzPM711MGxg52MNP_ER-JopixYsPKV7znnPs7NsucEFwST5lVf9FKFokxxgXmBK_YgOyd13eYV5T8eLjFtckIpPsuexNhjXDLWto-zs5Lxqixpe579vtIa1IS8RhsYRisnQGsYfZiM2y2_74M0Dt2sVxFpH9DNbCczWkC3ykLw0UTk3YmBNnc--Hl35yBGJF2HPsMcvPU7E6d8naQ79G2W1kyH14kSk1RcSkj0NSmNqQ2zh3sEWg1j8HsYwE1Lvk_pp9kjLW2EZ6f3Ivv-4Wpz-Sm__vJxdfnuOle0rqe8rLZbzVpWbyvOgdVKNZyqsm4l6yqla6CKtqQhLQDFrCa61ryhkjCt9bbjsrrIXh51Uwe_ZoiTGExUYK104OcoSEtZyzGuSIKWR6hKI8QAWozBDDIcBMFicUn0YnFJLC4JzEVyKZFenPTn7QDdX8q9LQnw5giANOXeQBBRGXAKOhPSHkTnzf_13_5DV9Y4o6T9CQeIvZ-DS_sTRMRSYHG73MlyJqSpMKeMVn8ABPm8Cg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1847890031</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Effect of Template Reporting of Brain MRIs for Multiple Sclerosis on Report Thoroughness and Neurologist-Rated Quality: Results of a Prospective Quality Improvement Project</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)</source><creator>Dickerson, Elliot, MD ; Davenport, Matthew S., MD ; Syed, Faiz, MD ; Stuve, Olaf, MD, PhD ; Cohen, Jeffrey A., MD ; Rinker, John R., MD ; Goldman, Myla D., MD ; Segal, Benjamin M., MD ; Foerster, Bradley R., MD</creator><creatorcontrib>Dickerson, Elliot, MD ; Davenport, Matthew S., MD ; Syed, Faiz, MD ; Stuve, Olaf, MD, PhD ; Cohen, Jeffrey A., MD ; Rinker, John R., MD ; Goldman, Myla D., MD ; Segal, Benjamin M., MD ; Foerster, Bradley R., MD ; Michigan Radiology Quality Collaborative</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract Purpose To assess the impact of structured reporting templates on the objective and subjective quality of radiology reports for brain MRIs in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). Methods A HIPAA-compliant prospective quality improvement initiative was undertaken to develop and implement a 12-item structured reporting template for brain MRI examinations in patients with known or suspected MS based on published guidelines. Reports created 1 year before implementing the template served as the baseline. A random sample of 10 template and 10 non-template reports was sent to five neurologists outside the study institution with MS expertise, who reviewed the reports for comprehensiveness and quality. The number of MS-relevant elements in template and non-template reports were compared with unpaired t tests. Proportions were compared with χ2 and Fisher exact tests. Results There were 63 reports in the pre-template period and 93 reports in the post-template period. Use of the template increased over time in the post-template period ( P  = .04). All 12 MS-relevant findings were addressed more often and with less variability in template reports: (11.1 ± 0.7 findings versus 5.8 ± 2.2 findings in non-template reports, P &lt; .001). Neurologists were more likely to give the template reports the highest positive rating (56% [107/190] versus 28% [56/199], P &lt; .001) and less likely to give the template reports a lower rating (7% [13/190] versus 15% [29/199], P  = .01) compared with the non-template reports. Conclusion Template reporting of brain MRI examinations increases the rate at which MS-relevant findings are included in the report. Standardized reports are preferred by neurologists with MS expertise.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1546-1440</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1558-349X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2016.09.037</identifier><identifier>PMID: 27932248</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Adult ; Aged ; Documentation - standards ; Female ; Humans ; Magnetic Resonance Imaging - standards ; Male ; Middle Aged ; multiple sclerosis ; Multiple Sclerosis - diagnostic imaging ; Neuroimaging - standards ; Neurologists ; Prospective Studies ; Quality Improvement ; Radiology ; radiology report ; Radiology templates ; template reporting ; United States</subject><ispartof>Journal of the American College of Radiology, 2017-03, Vol.14 (3), p.371-379.e1</ispartof><rights>American College of Radiology</rights><rights>2016 American College of Radiology</rights><rights>Copyright © 2016 American College of Radiology. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c455t-23bbf7875b399e75cc694c258a7d3cf5e4c481618ee40751f5f964a17fffbd9a3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c455t-23bbf7875b399e75cc694c258a7d3cf5e4c481618ee40751f5f964a17fffbd9a3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2016.09.037$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>315,782,786,3554,27933,27934,46004</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27932248$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Dickerson, Elliot, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Davenport, Matthew S., MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Syed, Faiz, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stuve, Olaf, MD, PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cohen, Jeffrey A., MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rinker, John R., MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Goldman, Myla D., MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Segal, Benjamin M., MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Foerster, Bradley R., MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Michigan Radiology Quality Collaborative</creatorcontrib><title>Effect of Template Reporting of Brain MRIs for Multiple Sclerosis on Report Thoroughness and Neurologist-Rated Quality: Results of a Prospective Quality Improvement Project</title><title>Journal of the American College of Radiology</title><addtitle>J Am Coll Radiol</addtitle><description>Abstract Purpose To assess the impact of structured reporting templates on the objective and subjective quality of radiology reports for brain MRIs in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). Methods A HIPAA-compliant prospective quality improvement initiative was undertaken to develop and implement a 12-item structured reporting template for brain MRI examinations in patients with known or suspected MS based on published guidelines. Reports created 1 year before implementing the template served as the baseline. A random sample of 10 template and 10 non-template reports was sent to five neurologists outside the study institution with MS expertise, who reviewed the reports for comprehensiveness and quality. The number of MS-relevant elements in template and non-template reports were compared with unpaired t tests. Proportions were compared with χ2 and Fisher exact tests. Results There were 63 reports in the pre-template period and 93 reports in the post-template period. Use of the template increased over time in the post-template period ( P  = .04). All 12 MS-relevant findings were addressed more often and with less variability in template reports: (11.1 ± 0.7 findings versus 5.8 ± 2.2 findings in non-template reports, P &lt; .001). Neurologists were more likely to give the template reports the highest positive rating (56% [107/190] versus 28% [56/199], P &lt; .001) and less likely to give the template reports a lower rating (7% [13/190] versus 15% [29/199], P  = .01) compared with the non-template reports. Conclusion Template reporting of brain MRI examinations increases the rate at which MS-relevant findings are included in the report. Standardized reports are preferred by neurologists with MS expertise.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Documentation - standards</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Magnetic Resonance Imaging - standards</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>multiple sclerosis</subject><subject>Multiple Sclerosis - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Neuroimaging - standards</subject><subject>Neurologists</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Quality Improvement</subject><subject>Radiology</subject><subject>radiology report</subject><subject>Radiology templates</subject><subject>template reporting</subject><subject>United States</subject><issn>1546-1440</issn><issn>1558-349X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9Ustu1DAUjRCIlsIPsEBeskmwEyeOEUKCqsBILY_pILGzPM711MGxg52MNP_ER-JopixYsPKV7znnPs7NsucEFwST5lVf9FKFokxxgXmBK_YgOyd13eYV5T8eLjFtckIpPsuexNhjXDLWto-zs5Lxqixpe579vtIa1IS8RhsYRisnQGsYfZiM2y2_74M0Dt2sVxFpH9DNbCczWkC3ykLw0UTk3YmBNnc--Hl35yBGJF2HPsMcvPU7E6d8naQ79G2W1kyH14kSk1RcSkj0NSmNqQ2zh3sEWg1j8HsYwE1Lvk_pp9kjLW2EZ6f3Ivv-4Wpz-Sm__vJxdfnuOle0rqe8rLZbzVpWbyvOgdVKNZyqsm4l6yqla6CKtqQhLQDFrCa61ryhkjCt9bbjsrrIXh51Uwe_ZoiTGExUYK104OcoSEtZyzGuSIKWR6hKI8QAWozBDDIcBMFicUn0YnFJLC4JzEVyKZFenPTn7QDdX8q9LQnw5giANOXeQBBRGXAKOhPSHkTnzf_13_5DV9Y4o6T9CQeIvZ-DS_sTRMRSYHG73MlyJqSpMKeMVn8ABPm8Cg</recordid><startdate>20170301</startdate><enddate>20170301</enddate><creator>Dickerson, Elliot, MD</creator><creator>Davenport, Matthew S., MD</creator><creator>Syed, Faiz, MD</creator><creator>Stuve, Olaf, MD, PhD</creator><creator>Cohen, Jeffrey A., MD</creator><creator>Rinker, John R., MD</creator><creator>Goldman, Myla D., MD</creator><creator>Segal, Benjamin M., MD</creator><creator>Foerster, Bradley R., MD</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20170301</creationdate><title>Effect of Template Reporting of Brain MRIs for Multiple Sclerosis on Report Thoroughness and Neurologist-Rated Quality: Results of a Prospective Quality Improvement Project</title><author>Dickerson, Elliot, MD ; Davenport, Matthew S., MD ; Syed, Faiz, MD ; Stuve, Olaf, MD, PhD ; Cohen, Jeffrey A., MD ; Rinker, John R., MD ; Goldman, Myla D., MD ; Segal, Benjamin M., MD ; Foerster, Bradley R., MD</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c455t-23bbf7875b399e75cc694c258a7d3cf5e4c481618ee40751f5f964a17fffbd9a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Documentation - standards</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Magnetic Resonance Imaging - standards</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>multiple sclerosis</topic><topic>Multiple Sclerosis - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Neuroimaging - standards</topic><topic>Neurologists</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Quality Improvement</topic><topic>Radiology</topic><topic>radiology report</topic><topic>Radiology templates</topic><topic>template reporting</topic><topic>United States</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Dickerson, Elliot, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Davenport, Matthew S., MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Syed, Faiz, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stuve, Olaf, MD, PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cohen, Jeffrey A., MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rinker, John R., MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Goldman, Myla D., MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Segal, Benjamin M., MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Foerster, Bradley R., MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Michigan Radiology Quality Collaborative</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of the American College of Radiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Dickerson, Elliot, MD</au><au>Davenport, Matthew S., MD</au><au>Syed, Faiz, MD</au><au>Stuve, Olaf, MD, PhD</au><au>Cohen, Jeffrey A., MD</au><au>Rinker, John R., MD</au><au>Goldman, Myla D., MD</au><au>Segal, Benjamin M., MD</au><au>Foerster, Bradley R., MD</au><aucorp>Michigan Radiology Quality Collaborative</aucorp><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Effect of Template Reporting of Brain MRIs for Multiple Sclerosis on Report Thoroughness and Neurologist-Rated Quality: Results of a Prospective Quality Improvement Project</atitle><jtitle>Journal of the American College of Radiology</jtitle><addtitle>J Am Coll Radiol</addtitle><date>2017-03-01</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>14</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>371</spage><epage>379.e1</epage><pages>371-379.e1</pages><issn>1546-1440</issn><eissn>1558-349X</eissn><abstract>Abstract Purpose To assess the impact of structured reporting templates on the objective and subjective quality of radiology reports for brain MRIs in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). Methods A HIPAA-compliant prospective quality improvement initiative was undertaken to develop and implement a 12-item structured reporting template for brain MRI examinations in patients with known or suspected MS based on published guidelines. Reports created 1 year before implementing the template served as the baseline. A random sample of 10 template and 10 non-template reports was sent to five neurologists outside the study institution with MS expertise, who reviewed the reports for comprehensiveness and quality. The number of MS-relevant elements in template and non-template reports were compared with unpaired t tests. Proportions were compared with χ2 and Fisher exact tests. Results There were 63 reports in the pre-template period and 93 reports in the post-template period. Use of the template increased over time in the post-template period ( P  = .04). All 12 MS-relevant findings were addressed more often and with less variability in template reports: (11.1 ± 0.7 findings versus 5.8 ± 2.2 findings in non-template reports, P &lt; .001). Neurologists were more likely to give the template reports the highest positive rating (56% [107/190] versus 28% [56/199], P &lt; .001) and less likely to give the template reports a lower rating (7% [13/190] versus 15% [29/199], P  = .01) compared with the non-template reports. Conclusion Template reporting of brain MRI examinations increases the rate at which MS-relevant findings are included in the report. Standardized reports are preferred by neurologists with MS expertise.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>27932248</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.jacr.2016.09.037</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1546-1440
ispartof Journal of the American College of Radiology, 2017-03, Vol.14 (3), p.371-379.e1
issn 1546-1440
1558-349X
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1847890031
source MEDLINE; Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)
subjects Adult
Aged
Documentation - standards
Female
Humans
Magnetic Resonance Imaging - standards
Male
Middle Aged
multiple sclerosis
Multiple Sclerosis - diagnostic imaging
Neuroimaging - standards
Neurologists
Prospective Studies
Quality Improvement
Radiology
radiology report
Radiology templates
template reporting
United States
title Effect of Template Reporting of Brain MRIs for Multiple Sclerosis on Report Thoroughness and Neurologist-Rated Quality: Results of a Prospective Quality Improvement Project
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-03T00%3A42%3A59IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Effect%20of%20Template%20Reporting%20of%20Brain%20MRIs%20for%20Multiple%20Sclerosis%20on%20Report%20Thoroughness%20and%20Neurologist-Rated%20Quality:%20Results%20of%20a%20Prospective%20Quality%20Improvement%20Project&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20the%20American%20College%20of%20Radiology&rft.au=Dickerson,%20Elliot,%20MD&rft.aucorp=Michigan%20Radiology%20Quality%20Collaborative&rft.date=2017-03-01&rft.volume=14&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=371&rft.epage=379.e1&rft.pages=371-379.e1&rft.issn=1546-1440&rft.eissn=1558-349X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.jacr.2016.09.037&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1847890031%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1847890031&rft_id=info:pmid/27932248&rft_els_id=1_s2_0_S1546144016309474&rfr_iscdi=true