Radiology report format preferred by requesting physicians: prospective analysis in a population of physicians at a university hospital
To improve communication between attending physicians and radiologists by defining which information should be included in radiology reports and which reporting format is preferred by requesting physicians at a university hospital. Respondents were asked to choose among reports with different format...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Radiologia brasileira 2019-03, Vol.52 (2), p.97-103 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 103 |
---|---|
container_issue | 2 |
container_start_page | 97 |
container_title | Radiologia brasileira |
container_volume | 52 |
creator | Camilo, Denise Maria Rissato Tibana, Tiago Kojun Adôrno, Isa Félix Santos, Rômulo Florêncio Tristão Klaesener, Camila Gutierrez Junior, Walberth Marchiori, Edson Nunes, Thiago Franchi |
description | To improve communication between attending physicians and radiologists by defining which information should be included in radiology reports and which reporting format is preferred by requesting physicians at a university hospital.
Respondents were asked to choose among reports with different formats and levels of detail, related to three hypothetical cases, and questioned as to which characteristics commonly found in radiology reports are appropriate for inclusion. To assign the absolute order of preference of the different reports, the Kemeny-Young method was used.
Ninety-nine physicians completed the questionnaires (40.4% were resident physicians; 31.3% were preceptors of residency programs; and 28.3% were professors of medicine). For ultrasound with normal findings, ultrasound showing alterations, and computed tomography, respectively, 54%, 59%, and 53% of the respondents chose structured reports with an impression or comment. According to the respondents, the characteristics that should be included in the radiology report are the quality of the image, details of the clinical presentation, diagnostic impression, examination technique, and information about contrast administration, selected by 92%, 91%, 89%, 72%, and 68%, respectively. Other characteristics that were considered important were recommendations on follow-up and additional radiological or non-radiological investigation.
Requesting physicians apparently prefer structured reports with a radiologist impression or comment. Information such as the quality of the examination, the contrast agent used, and suggestions regarding follow-up and additional investigation are valued. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1590/0100-3984.2018.0026 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_sciel</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_scielo_journals_S0100_39842019000200097</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><scielo_id>S0100_39842019000200097</scielo_id><sourcerecordid>2215013293</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3596-11154e9e06e2350e1d17e9e15e9595ea390689f4d745fee614a208ce882c98a83</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpVUd1qFDEYDaLY7eoTCJJLb2bNzySTeCFIsVUoCLZehzTzzW5KNhmTmcI-ga9tpluXehFCOD85nIPQO0o2VGjykVBCGq5Vu2GEqg0hTL5AKyo71XRE65dodWKcofNS7iuj4518jc44JVRzrlboz0_b-xTS9oAzjClPeEh5byc8ZhggZ-jx3QL9nqFMPm7xuDsU77yN5VPlpDKCm_wDYBttqEjBPmKLxzTOwU4-RZyGZxpcnS2eY1Xk4qcD3lUHP9nwBr0abCjw9uleo1-XX28vvjXXP66-X3y5bhwXWjaUUtGCBiKBcUGA9rSrTypACy3Ack2k0kPbd60YACRtLSPKgVLMaWUVX6PN0bc4DyGZ-zTnmryYm6Uss5RV29SkdlWP7qrg81Ewznd76B3EKdtgxuz3Nh9Mst78j0S_M9v0YGTbMSXbavDhySCnxxbN3hcHIdgIaS6GMSoI5azusUb8SHW12FIHOH1DiVk2N6eQZtncLJtX1fvnCU-afyPzvwVUqKE</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2215013293</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Radiology report format preferred by requesting physicians: prospective analysis in a population of physicians at a university hospital</title><source>PubMed Central Open Access</source><source>Free E-Journal (出版社公開部分のみ)</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Camilo, Denise Maria Rissato ; Tibana, Tiago Kojun ; Adôrno, Isa Félix ; Santos, Rômulo Florêncio Tristão ; Klaesener, Camila ; Gutierrez Junior, Walberth ; Marchiori, Edson ; Nunes, Thiago Franchi</creator><creatorcontrib>Camilo, Denise Maria Rissato ; Tibana, Tiago Kojun ; Adôrno, Isa Félix ; Santos, Rômulo Florêncio Tristão ; Klaesener, Camila ; Gutierrez Junior, Walberth ; Marchiori, Edson ; Nunes, Thiago Franchi</creatorcontrib><description>To improve communication between attending physicians and radiologists by defining which information should be included in radiology reports and which reporting format is preferred by requesting physicians at a university hospital.
Respondents were asked to choose among reports with different formats and levels of detail, related to three hypothetical cases, and questioned as to which characteristics commonly found in radiology reports are appropriate for inclusion. To assign the absolute order of preference of the different reports, the Kemeny-Young method was used.
Ninety-nine physicians completed the questionnaires (40.4% were resident physicians; 31.3% were preceptors of residency programs; and 28.3% were professors of medicine). For ultrasound with normal findings, ultrasound showing alterations, and computed tomography, respectively, 54%, 59%, and 53% of the respondents chose structured reports with an impression or comment. According to the respondents, the characteristics that should be included in the radiology report are the quality of the image, details of the clinical presentation, diagnostic impression, examination technique, and information about contrast administration, selected by 92%, 91%, 89%, 72%, and 68%, respectively. Other characteristics that were considered important were recommendations on follow-up and additional radiological or non-radiological investigation.
Requesting physicians apparently prefer structured reports with a radiologist impression or comment. Information such as the quality of the examination, the contrast agent used, and suggestions regarding follow-up and additional investigation are valued.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0100-3984</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1678-7099</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1678-7099</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1590/0100-3984.2018.0026</identifier><identifier>PMID: 31019338</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Brazil: Colégio Brasileiro de Radiologia e Diagnóstico por Imagem</publisher><subject>Original ; RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING</subject><ispartof>Radiologia brasileira, 2019-03, Vol.52 (2), p.97-103</ispartof><rights>This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3596-11154e9e06e2350e1d17e9e15e9595ea390689f4d745fee614a208ce882c98a83</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3596-11154e9e06e2350e1d17e9e15e9595ea390689f4d745fee614a208ce882c98a83</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-5930-1383 ; 0000-0002-2106-1211 ; 0000-0003-0006-3725 ; 0000-0002-8679-7369 ; 0000-0002-9016-8610 ; 0000-0001-8797-7380 ; 0000-0001-7106-1212 ; 0000-0002-9798-221X</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6472864/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6472864/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,27924,27925,53791,53793</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31019338$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Camilo, Denise Maria Rissato</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tibana, Tiago Kojun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Adôrno, Isa Félix</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Santos, Rômulo Florêncio Tristão</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Klaesener, Camila</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gutierrez Junior, Walberth</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marchiori, Edson</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nunes, Thiago Franchi</creatorcontrib><title>Radiology report format preferred by requesting physicians: prospective analysis in a population of physicians at a university hospital</title><title>Radiologia brasileira</title><addtitle>Radiol Bras</addtitle><description>To improve communication between attending physicians and radiologists by defining which information should be included in radiology reports and which reporting format is preferred by requesting physicians at a university hospital.
Respondents were asked to choose among reports with different formats and levels of detail, related to three hypothetical cases, and questioned as to which characteristics commonly found in radiology reports are appropriate for inclusion. To assign the absolute order of preference of the different reports, the Kemeny-Young method was used.
Ninety-nine physicians completed the questionnaires (40.4% were resident physicians; 31.3% were preceptors of residency programs; and 28.3% were professors of medicine). For ultrasound with normal findings, ultrasound showing alterations, and computed tomography, respectively, 54%, 59%, and 53% of the respondents chose structured reports with an impression or comment. According to the respondents, the characteristics that should be included in the radiology report are the quality of the image, details of the clinical presentation, diagnostic impression, examination technique, and information about contrast administration, selected by 92%, 91%, 89%, 72%, and 68%, respectively. Other characteristics that were considered important were recommendations on follow-up and additional radiological or non-radiological investigation.
Requesting physicians apparently prefer structured reports with a radiologist impression or comment. Information such as the quality of the examination, the contrast agent used, and suggestions regarding follow-up and additional investigation are valued.</description><subject>Original</subject><subject>RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING</subject><issn>0100-3984</issn><issn>1678-7099</issn><issn>1678-7099</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNpVUd1qFDEYDaLY7eoTCJJLb2bNzySTeCFIsVUoCLZehzTzzW5KNhmTmcI-ga9tpluXehFCOD85nIPQO0o2VGjykVBCGq5Vu2GEqg0hTL5AKyo71XRE65dodWKcofNS7iuj4518jc44JVRzrlboz0_b-xTS9oAzjClPeEh5byc8ZhggZ-jx3QL9nqFMPm7xuDsU77yN5VPlpDKCm_wDYBttqEjBPmKLxzTOwU4-RZyGZxpcnS2eY1Xk4qcD3lUHP9nwBr0abCjw9uleo1-XX28vvjXXP66-X3y5bhwXWjaUUtGCBiKBcUGA9rSrTypACy3Ack2k0kPbd60YACRtLSPKgVLMaWUVX6PN0bc4DyGZ-zTnmryYm6Uss5RV29SkdlWP7qrg81Ewznd76B3EKdtgxuz3Nh9Mst78j0S_M9v0YGTbMSXbavDhySCnxxbN3hcHIdgIaS6GMSoI5azusUb8SHW12FIHOH1DiVk2N6eQZtncLJtX1fvnCU-afyPzvwVUqKE</recordid><startdate>20190301</startdate><enddate>20190301</enddate><creator>Camilo, Denise Maria Rissato</creator><creator>Tibana, Tiago Kojun</creator><creator>Adôrno, Isa Félix</creator><creator>Santos, Rômulo Florêncio Tristão</creator><creator>Klaesener, Camila</creator><creator>Gutierrez Junior, Walberth</creator><creator>Marchiori, Edson</creator><creator>Nunes, Thiago Franchi</creator><general>Colégio Brasileiro de Radiologia e Diagnóstico por Imagem</general><general>Publicação do Colégio Brasileiro de Radiologia e Diagnóstico por Imagem</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>GPN</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5930-1383</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2106-1211</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0006-3725</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8679-7369</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9016-8610</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8797-7380</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7106-1212</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9798-221X</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20190301</creationdate><title>Radiology report format preferred by requesting physicians: prospective analysis in a population of physicians at a university hospital</title><author>Camilo, Denise Maria Rissato ; Tibana, Tiago Kojun ; Adôrno, Isa Félix ; Santos, Rômulo Florêncio Tristão ; Klaesener, Camila ; Gutierrez Junior, Walberth ; Marchiori, Edson ; Nunes, Thiago Franchi</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3596-11154e9e06e2350e1d17e9e15e9595ea390689f4d745fee614a208ce882c98a83</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Original</topic><topic>RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Camilo, Denise Maria Rissato</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tibana, Tiago Kojun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Adôrno, Isa Félix</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Santos, Rômulo Florêncio Tristão</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Klaesener, Camila</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gutierrez Junior, Walberth</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marchiori, Edson</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nunes, Thiago Franchi</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>SciELO</collection><jtitle>Radiologia brasileira</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Camilo, Denise Maria Rissato</au><au>Tibana, Tiago Kojun</au><au>Adôrno, Isa Félix</au><au>Santos, Rômulo Florêncio Tristão</au><au>Klaesener, Camila</au><au>Gutierrez Junior, Walberth</au><au>Marchiori, Edson</au><au>Nunes, Thiago Franchi</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Radiology report format preferred by requesting physicians: prospective analysis in a population of physicians at a university hospital</atitle><jtitle>Radiologia brasileira</jtitle><addtitle>Radiol Bras</addtitle><date>2019-03-01</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>52</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>97</spage><epage>103</epage><pages>97-103</pages><issn>0100-3984</issn><issn>1678-7099</issn><eissn>1678-7099</eissn><abstract>To improve communication between attending physicians and radiologists by defining which information should be included in radiology reports and which reporting format is preferred by requesting physicians at a university hospital.
Respondents were asked to choose among reports with different formats and levels of detail, related to three hypothetical cases, and questioned as to which characteristics commonly found in radiology reports are appropriate for inclusion. To assign the absolute order of preference of the different reports, the Kemeny-Young method was used.
Ninety-nine physicians completed the questionnaires (40.4% were resident physicians; 31.3% were preceptors of residency programs; and 28.3% were professors of medicine). For ultrasound with normal findings, ultrasound showing alterations, and computed tomography, respectively, 54%, 59%, and 53% of the respondents chose structured reports with an impression or comment. According to the respondents, the characteristics that should be included in the radiology report are the quality of the image, details of the clinical presentation, diagnostic impression, examination technique, and information about contrast administration, selected by 92%, 91%, 89%, 72%, and 68%, respectively. Other characteristics that were considered important were recommendations on follow-up and additional radiological or non-radiological investigation.
Requesting physicians apparently prefer structured reports with a radiologist impression or comment. Information such as the quality of the examination, the contrast agent used, and suggestions regarding follow-up and additional investigation are valued.</abstract><cop>Brazil</cop><pub>Colégio Brasileiro de Radiologia e Diagnóstico por Imagem</pub><pmid>31019338</pmid><doi>10.1590/0100-3984.2018.0026</doi><tpages>7</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5930-1383</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2106-1211</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0006-3725</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8679-7369</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9016-8610</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8797-7380</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7106-1212</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9798-221X</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0100-3984 |
ispartof | Radiologia brasileira, 2019-03, Vol.52 (2), p.97-103 |
issn | 0100-3984 1678-7099 1678-7099 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_scielo_journals_S0100_39842019000200097 |
source | PubMed Central Open Access; Free E-Journal (出版社公開部分のみ); PubMed Central |
subjects | Original RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING |
title | Radiology report format preferred by requesting physicians: prospective analysis in a population of physicians at a university hospital |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-01T08%3A43%3A32IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_sciel&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Radiology%20report%20format%20preferred%20by%20requesting%20physicians:%20prospective%20analysis%20in%20a%20population%20of%20physicians%20at%20a%20university%20hospital&rft.jtitle=Radiologia%20brasileira&rft.au=Camilo,%20Denise%20Maria%20Rissato&rft.date=2019-03-01&rft.volume=52&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=97&rft.epage=103&rft.pages=97-103&rft.issn=0100-3984&rft.eissn=1678-7099&rft_id=info:doi/10.1590/0100-3984.2018.0026&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_sciel%3E2215013293%3C/proquest_sciel%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2215013293&rft_id=info:pmid/31019338&rft_scielo_id=S0100_39842019000200097&rfr_iscdi=true |