Referrers want more structured radiology reports
New survey data suggest most providers—whether radiologists or otherwise—prefer their patients’ neuroradiological reports to be structured.
Responses to the survey indicate that structured reporting of such studies more clearly communicates impressions regarding neurology patients, which often require more complex workups and management. Experts involved in the survey suggest that their findings highlight a need for better standardization.
“Radiology reports play a crucial role in efficiently and comprehensively communicating important radiological information between radiologists and referring physicians to guide diagnosis and treatment,” Paula Alcaide-Leon and Jimin Lee, both with the University of Toronto, write in the Canadian Association of Radiologists Journal. “The structure of these reports is critical for effective communication.”
To get a better idea of providers’ preferences related to report templates, the group distributed a survey to a large sample of radiologists and physicians who read neuroradiology reports across the greater Toronto area. Questions pertained to practice environments, satisfaction with current reports and preferences in report structures for seven different types of studies/areas of interest: MRI of the lumbar spine, MRI of the sella, MRI for for suspicion of dementia, MRI for glioma, MRI for brain metastases, CTA of the head and neck and an unenhanced CT of the brain.
Responses indicated a strong preference for structured reports, especially for CTA exams, the group notes. This notion was consistent for most of the exams, though around 33% of respondents expressed preference toward free-text reports for glioma exams.
The biggest differences between structured and free-text reports relate to the findings and impressions sections, both of which are critical for clearly communicating results to referrers. Respondents suggested this was their biggest reason for partiality toward structured reports, as many cited “ease in finding information” as the greatest benefit. In contrast, the few who preferred free-text reports were deterred by the number of sections contained in structured reports.
Overall, the group had similar feelings about a need for more standardized reporting methods, believing they would improve organization and potentially save time. Several also expressed an interest in including differential diagnoses and clinical interpretations beyond nonspecific image descriptions.
“This concern is particularly significant, as studies have identified substantial variability in the language used to convey diagnostic certainties in radiology reports. Institutions that have implemented structured reporting have reported significantly improved linguistic standardization compared to free text reports,” the group notes, adding the caveat that “comprehensiveness must be balanced with the length" because physicians do not always read the entire body of the report.
Although the team supports standardization toward structured reporting, they acknowledge that there must still be room for flexibility for more complex cases.
Learn more about the findings here.
In addition to her background in journalism, Hannah also has patient-facing experience in clinical settings, having spent more than 12 years working as a registered rad tech. She began covering the medical imaging industry for Innovate Healthcare in 2021.