Radiology reporting: a general practitioner's perspective
Unlike hospital-based clinicians, general practitioners (GPs) lack direct contact with radiologists, and the radiology report is usually the sole method of communication from the radiologist to the GP. It is important to gain feedback regarding what GPs perceive as a good-quality radiology report, e...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | British journal of radiology 2010, Vol.83 (985), p.17-22 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 22 |
---|---|
container_issue | 985 |
container_start_page | 17 |
container_title | British journal of radiology |
container_volume | 83 |
creator | GRIEVE, F. M PLUMB, A. A KHAN, S. H |
description | Unlike hospital-based clinicians, general practitioners (GPs) lack direct contact with radiologists, and the radiology report is usually the sole method of communication from the radiologist to the GP. It is important to gain feedback regarding what GPs perceive as a good-quality radiology report, especially in the current climate of competition for provision of radiology services. The aims of this study are to determine the level of GP satisfaction with radiology reports, their perception of optimum report content and their preferences regarding the level of detail and report format. A questionnaire was sent to 100 GPs referring to our Trust for radiology services. GPs were generally satisfied with the content and clarity of reports that they receive, and gave suggestions on how reports could be improved. The majority of GPs were unfamiliar with the normal size ranges of frequently measured anatomical structures. Radiologists' recommendations for further treatment, referral and non-radiological investigation were viewed as valuable report components. When asked to rank preferences for ultrasound reports for the same patient with differing formats and levels of detail, GPs favoured detailed reports in a tabulated format. In conclusion, the majority of GPs like detailed reports and value the radiologist's opinion outside the remit of imaging when suggesting further patient management. Reporting the size of a structure without explanation of its significance can potentially cause confusion. It is important to know if GPs are satisfied with the radiology reports they receive so that we can uphold high communication standards and ultimately improve patient care. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1259/bjr/16360063 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_3487261</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>733524884</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c413t-826efb8bbb19805be82dd50b4930c39b71913ae30e09b9b646e170350b619c343</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpVkM1LAzEQxYMotlZvnmUv0ourySa7STwIUvwCQRAFbyFJpzVlu1mTrdD_3hTXqqfhzfx483gIHRN8TopSXphFuCAVrTCu6A4aEs5ELgR-20VDjDHPSSHKATqIcbGRpcT7aEAk47jkbIjks546X_v5OgvQ-tC5Zn6Z6WwODQRdZ23QtnOd80mOY9ZCiC2kzSccor2ZriMc9XOEXm9vXib3-ePT3cPk-jG3jNAuF0UFMyOMMUQKXBoQxXRaYsMkxZZKw4kkVAPFgKWRpmIVEI5pIioiLWV0hK6-fduVWcLUQtOlYKoNbqnDWnnt1P9L497V3H8qygQvKpIMxr1B8B8riJ1aumihrnUDfhUVp7QsmBCbV2ffpA0-xgCz7ReC1aZslcpWP2Un_ORvsl-4bzcBpz2go9X1LOjGurjlioJySZLdF15Oh_4</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>733524884</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Radiology reporting: a general practitioner's perspective</title><source>Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><creator>GRIEVE, F. M ; PLUMB, A. A ; KHAN, S. H</creator><creatorcontrib>GRIEVE, F. M ; PLUMB, A. A ; KHAN, S. H</creatorcontrib><description>Unlike hospital-based clinicians, general practitioners (GPs) lack direct contact with radiologists, and the radiology report is usually the sole method of communication from the radiologist to the GP. It is important to gain feedback regarding what GPs perceive as a good-quality radiology report, especially in the current climate of competition for provision of radiology services. The aims of this study are to determine the level of GP satisfaction with radiology reports, their perception of optimum report content and their preferences regarding the level of detail and report format. A questionnaire was sent to 100 GPs referring to our Trust for radiology services. GPs were generally satisfied with the content and clarity of reports that they receive, and gave suggestions on how reports could be improved. The majority of GPs were unfamiliar with the normal size ranges of frequently measured anatomical structures. Radiologists' recommendations for further treatment, referral and non-radiological investigation were viewed as valuable report components. When asked to rank preferences for ultrasound reports for the same patient with differing formats and levels of detail, GPs favoured detailed reports in a tabulated format. In conclusion, the majority of GPs like detailed reports and value the radiologist's opinion outside the remit of imaging when suggesting further patient management. Reporting the size of a structure without explanation of its significance can potentially cause confusion. It is important to know if GPs are satisfied with the radiology reports they receive so that we can uphold high communication standards and ultimately improve patient care.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0007-1285</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1748-880X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1259/bjr/16360063</identifier><identifier>PMID: 19470574</identifier><identifier>CODEN: BJRAAP</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London: British Institute of Radiology</publisher><subject>Attitude of Health Personnel ; Biological and medical sciences ; Clinical Competence ; Communication ; Family Practice ; Health participants ; Humans ; Interprofessional Relations ; Medical Records - standards ; Medical sciences ; Public health. Hygiene ; Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine ; Radiology Department, Hospital - standards ; Referral and Consultation - standards ; Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><ispartof>British journal of radiology, 2010, Vol.83 (985), p.17-22</ispartof><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>2010 The British Institute of Radiology 2010</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c413t-826efb8bbb19805be82dd50b4930c39b71913ae30e09b9b646e170350b619c343</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c413t-826efb8bbb19805be82dd50b4930c39b71913ae30e09b9b646e170350b619c343</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>230,314,776,780,881,4010,27900,27901,27902</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=22379116$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19470574$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>GRIEVE, F. M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>PLUMB, A. A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>KHAN, S. H</creatorcontrib><title>Radiology reporting: a general practitioner's perspective</title><title>British journal of radiology</title><addtitle>Br J Radiol</addtitle><description>Unlike hospital-based clinicians, general practitioners (GPs) lack direct contact with radiologists, and the radiology report is usually the sole method of communication from the radiologist to the GP. It is important to gain feedback regarding what GPs perceive as a good-quality radiology report, especially in the current climate of competition for provision of radiology services. The aims of this study are to determine the level of GP satisfaction with radiology reports, their perception of optimum report content and their preferences regarding the level of detail and report format. A questionnaire was sent to 100 GPs referring to our Trust for radiology services. GPs were generally satisfied with the content and clarity of reports that they receive, and gave suggestions on how reports could be improved. The majority of GPs were unfamiliar with the normal size ranges of frequently measured anatomical structures. Radiologists' recommendations for further treatment, referral and non-radiological investigation were viewed as valuable report components. When asked to rank preferences for ultrasound reports for the same patient with differing formats and levels of detail, GPs favoured detailed reports in a tabulated format. In conclusion, the majority of GPs like detailed reports and value the radiologist's opinion outside the remit of imaging when suggesting further patient management. Reporting the size of a structure without explanation of its significance can potentially cause confusion. It is important to know if GPs are satisfied with the radiology reports they receive so that we can uphold high communication standards and ultimately improve patient care.</description><subject>Attitude of Health Personnel</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Clinical Competence</subject><subject>Communication</subject><subject>Family Practice</subject><subject>Health participants</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Interprofessional Relations</subject><subject>Medical Records - standards</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Public health. Hygiene</subject><subject>Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine</subject><subject>Radiology Department, Hospital - standards</subject><subject>Referral and Consultation - standards</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><issn>0007-1285</issn><issn>1748-880X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2010</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpVkM1LAzEQxYMotlZvnmUv0ourySa7STwIUvwCQRAFbyFJpzVlu1mTrdD_3hTXqqfhzfx483gIHRN8TopSXphFuCAVrTCu6A4aEs5ELgR-20VDjDHPSSHKATqIcbGRpcT7aEAk47jkbIjks546X_v5OgvQ-tC5Zn6Z6WwODQRdZ23QtnOd80mOY9ZCiC2kzSccor2ZriMc9XOEXm9vXib3-ePT3cPk-jG3jNAuF0UFMyOMMUQKXBoQxXRaYsMkxZZKw4kkVAPFgKWRpmIVEI5pIioiLWV0hK6-fduVWcLUQtOlYKoNbqnDWnnt1P9L497V3H8qygQvKpIMxr1B8B8riJ1aumihrnUDfhUVp7QsmBCbV2ffpA0-xgCz7ReC1aZslcpWP2Un_ORvsl-4bzcBpz2go9X1LOjGurjlioJySZLdF15Oh_4</recordid><startdate>2010</startdate><enddate>2010</enddate><creator>GRIEVE, F. M</creator><creator>PLUMB, A. A</creator><creator>KHAN, S. H</creator><general>British Institute of Radiology</general><general>The British Institute of Radiology</general><scope>IQODW</scope><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><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>2010</creationdate><title>Radiology reporting: a general practitioner's perspective</title><author>GRIEVE, F. M ; PLUMB, A. A ; KHAN, S. H</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c413t-826efb8bbb19805be82dd50b4930c39b71913ae30e09b9b646e170350b619c343</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2010</creationdate><topic>Attitude of Health Personnel</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Clinical Competence</topic><topic>Communication</topic><topic>Family Practice</topic><topic>Health participants</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Interprofessional Relations</topic><topic>Medical Records - standards</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Public health. Hygiene</topic><topic>Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine</topic><topic>Radiology Department, Hospital - standards</topic><topic>Referral and Consultation - standards</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>GRIEVE, F. M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>PLUMB, A. A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>KHAN, S. H</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><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><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>British journal of radiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>GRIEVE, F. M</au><au>PLUMB, A. A</au><au>KHAN, S. H</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Radiology reporting: a general practitioner's perspective</atitle><jtitle>British journal of radiology</jtitle><addtitle>Br J Radiol</addtitle><date>2010</date><risdate>2010</risdate><volume>83</volume><issue>985</issue><spage>17</spage><epage>22</epage><pages>17-22</pages><issn>0007-1285</issn><eissn>1748-880X</eissn><coden>BJRAAP</coden><abstract>Unlike hospital-based clinicians, general practitioners (GPs) lack direct contact with radiologists, and the radiology report is usually the sole method of communication from the radiologist to the GP. It is important to gain feedback regarding what GPs perceive as a good-quality radiology report, especially in the current climate of competition for provision of radiology services. The aims of this study are to determine the level of GP satisfaction with radiology reports, their perception of optimum report content and their preferences regarding the level of detail and report format. A questionnaire was sent to 100 GPs referring to our Trust for radiology services. GPs were generally satisfied with the content and clarity of reports that they receive, and gave suggestions on how reports could be improved. The majority of GPs were unfamiliar with the normal size ranges of frequently measured anatomical structures. Radiologists' recommendations for further treatment, referral and non-radiological investigation were viewed as valuable report components. When asked to rank preferences for ultrasound reports for the same patient with differing formats and levels of detail, GPs favoured detailed reports in a tabulated format. In conclusion, the majority of GPs like detailed reports and value the radiologist's opinion outside the remit of imaging when suggesting further patient management. Reporting the size of a structure without explanation of its significance can potentially cause confusion. It is important to know if GPs are satisfied with the radiology reports they receive so that we can uphold high communication standards and ultimately improve patient care.</abstract><cop>London</cop><pub>British Institute of Radiology</pub><pmid>19470574</pmid><doi>10.1259/bjr/16360063</doi><tpages>6</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0007-1285 |
ispartof | British journal of radiology, 2010, Vol.83 (985), p.17-22 |
issn | 0007-1285 1748-880X |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_3487261 |
source | Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current); MEDLINE; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals |
subjects | Attitude of Health Personnel Biological and medical sciences Clinical Competence Communication Family Practice Health participants Humans Interprofessional Relations Medical Records - standards Medical sciences Public health. Hygiene Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine Radiology Department, Hospital - standards Referral and Consultation - standards Surveys and Questionnaires |
title | Radiology reporting: a general practitioner's perspective |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-09T23%3A04%3A54IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Radiology%20reporting:%20a%20general%20practitioner's%20perspective&rft.jtitle=British%20journal%20of%20radiology&rft.au=GRIEVE,%20F.%20M&rft.date=2010&rft.volume=83&rft.issue=985&rft.spage=17&rft.epage=22&rft.pages=17-22&rft.issn=0007-1285&rft.eissn=1748-880X&rft.coden=BJRAAP&rft_id=info:doi/10.1259/bjr/16360063&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E733524884%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=733524884&rft_id=info:pmid/19470574&rfr_iscdi=true |