C.O.V.E.R. (Clinician’s Opinions, Views, and Expectations concerning the radiology Report) Study: A University Hospital Experience
10.35460/2546-1621.2017-0038
- Author:
Joanna Marie D CHOA
1
;
Jan M.L BOSMANS
2
Author Information
1. Resident-in-Training, Department of Radiological Sciences, USTH, Manila, Philippines
2. Staff Radiologist, Department of Radiology and Medical Imaging, Ghent University Hospital, Visiting Professor, Ghent University, Ghent, Flanders, Belgium
- Publication Type:Case Reports
- MeSH:
Surveys and Questionnaires;
Radiology
- From:
Journal of Medicine University of Santo Tomas
2018;2(1):160-170
- CountryPhilippines
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
Purpose:The study seeks to examine if radiology
reports at the University of Santo Tomas Hospital
(USTH) meet referring physicians’ preferences pertaining to the following parameters of a well-composed radiology report: Importance, Clinical correlation, Referrer’s satisfaction, Content, Structure and
Style. It also aims to compare outcomes from this
region with its European (EURO) counterpart to highlight possible regional differences in preferences
Methods and Materials:A 41-item survey was
distributed among consultants and fellows at USTH.
Respondents graded their level of agreement using
a Likert scale. A free text area was for comments,
opinions, and/or suggestions on improving the radiology report. Reponses were collated, statistically
analyzed, and compared with those of the EURO
study. The study was approved by the hospital’s
Review Board and voluntary consent was obtained
for each participant.
Results :A total of 283 clinicians participated in
the study with a good response rate. The majority
of the statements showed similar results between
this Southeast Asian study and the EURO study. The
highlights of the study based on the different criteria
are as follows:
On Importance: The radiology report is a valued tool
in the management of patients in everyday practice;
On Clinical Correlation: Clinicians would rather
radiologists know about the patients’ medical condition except for a few who think otherwise, due to the
possibility of bias in the report;
On Referrer’s Satisfaction: Clinicians are satisfi ed
with the reports they receive although the use of
common words is more appreciated;
On content: Clinicians read the descriptive part of
the report and they would like to receive an impression of the pathology at the end;
On Structure and Style: The use of simpler style and
vocabulary in making radiology reports should be
considered for better understanding and also to include explicit technical details of the examination;
Open communication with clinicians, faster release of results and specialty-based interpretation of
images were also some of the suggestions in this
study. Clinicians from both studies also advocate the
incorporation of making a radiology report a part of
the radiology training.
Conclusion:The radiology reports generated from
USTH were able to meet referring physicians’ preferences, providing substantial information that is
valued as an essential part of patient management.
Outcomes from this study showed the majority of the
fi ndings to be similar with its European (EURO) counterpart.
- Full text:JMUST 7.pdf
