Radiologic Reports: Attitudes, Preferred Type, and Opinion of Referring Physicians.
10.3348/jkrs.2001.45.3.325
- Author:
Won Young KIM
1
;
Seong Su HWANG
;
Myeong Im AHN
;
Youn Joo JUNG
;
Jung Im JUNG
;
Hye Sook JANG
;
Bo Young AHN
;
Soon Nam O
;
Song E HAN
Author Information
1. Department of Radiology, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea.
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Radiology and radiologists;
Radiology reporting systems
- MeSH:
Hospitals, University;
Magnetic Resonance Imaging;
Surveys and Questionnaires;
Radiography
- From:Journal of the Korean Radiological Society
2001;45(3):325-331
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: To determine referring physicians 'general attitudes, preferred reporting types, and opinions on radiologic reports. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A survey questionnaire was distributed to the 315 staff and residents of four university hospitals with 400 to 800 beds, and a total of 228 physicians responded. The questionnaire aimed to determine of the general attitude of referring physicians to radiologic reports, the type of report they preferred, and other opinions and suggestions. The responses elicited, as well as discrepancies among residents, staff, internist, and surgeons, were analyzed. RESULTS: Most referring physicians replied that they read an entire report regardless of its length, and the second majority read the conclusion first and then the remainder of the report only if clarification was required. With regard to report length, physicians answered that reports describing the findings of conventional radiography were often too short, while those dealing with MRI were verbose. The majority experienced occasional confusion when reading a report, the major cause being grammatical errors and incomprehensible sentence structure. When confused, most physicians consulted the radiologist; staff showed a greater inclination than residents to pursue this option. Most physicians preferred brief phrases or telegraphic-style sentences to a style which stressed completeness and detail, a preference which was statistically higher among residents than staff. Whereas physicians favored a brief radiologic report in cases of normal radiologic findings, conventional radiologic studies or no clinical findings, they wished to see a more detailed report in cases of abnormal radiologic findings, specific radiologic studies (special radiographs, US, CT, or MRI), or positive clinical findings. This need for more detail was expressed more frequently by internists than by surgeons. CONCLUSION: If implemented, the results of this study can be expected to enhance the quality and comprehensibility of radiologic reports, and may also lead to more efficient communication between radiologists and physicians.
