Same Page: More than 50% of radiologists work at groups that heavily use structured reporting

North American radiologists appear to be onboard with implementing structured reporting, and those that are already using it are generally satisfied with their reports, according to a new survey.

Despite a growing call for structured reporting across medical disciplines in recent years, what constitutes the structured report and how radiologists should create one are not clear. Limitations and conflicts remain in developing guidelines for radiology reporting and in how to create useful and accurate reports.

In an effort to provide a glimpse into the practice and preference of using standardized reporting and language in radiology, researchers Daniel K. Powell, MD, and James E. Silberzweig, MD, of New York Presbyterian and Mount Sinai Beth Israel in New York City, respectively, polled members of the Association of University Radiologists about their preferences and use of structured reporting styles and standardized language when creating radiology reports.

Their findings were published this month in Academic Radiology.

Powell and Silberzweig sent 910 members an 18-question survey though SurveyMonkey.com that addressed development, use, and experience of structured reporting, language, and imaging classification or reporting systems and personal dictation styles.

A total of 265 (29.1 percent) of contacted members replied to the survey. More than 90 percent of respondents were associated with an academic teaching hospital.

When participants were asked if their group had developed their own structured report styles, 51.3 percent stated they had used structured reports in at least half of their reports, 31.3 percent had done so with a few of their reports and 10.9 percent had not done so with any reports they knew of.

Due to the small sample of nonacademic group respondents, researchers could not demonstrate significant differences in responses between survey participants who worked in an academic teaching hospital and those who did not. However, use of standardized reports was less frequent among survey participants who did not work in an academic teaching hospital (25 percent reported using structured reports in more than half of the reports they prepare) compared to respondents who did work for an academic teaching hospital (37.3 percent).

The survey found that most radiology departments are using structured reports in some fashion, and although there is reported satisfaction with its use, strong opinions about limitations and value were reported.

The most commonly adhered to structured reporting and classification systems included the Bosniak renal cyst classification (52.3 percent), LI-RADS (22.2 percent) and the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma injury grading system (22.2 percent).

Researchers reported that the most passionate criticism of standardized reporting was generated from the question of resident education and whether structured reports might hamper the ability to describe pathology and synthesize findings in a diagnostic study.

“Our survey suggests that residents take time to learn the discipline of adjusting or deleting structured default text so as not to contradict their reported findings,” Powell and Silberzweig wrote.

They concluded that their survey “suggests that the value of institutionalizing standard reporting is largely accepted by academic radiologists,” though they acknowledged the data also showed the complexity of refining standardized reporting and putting it to use.