Communicating Results Directly to Patients

A cynic is the man who knows the price of everything but the value of nothing. —Oscar Wilde

It is unclear to whom Wilde was alluding. It may have been economists, but certainly not present-day radiologists, who are constantly in search for the seemingly elusive value of their professional existence. Attend any societal meeting, any academic discussion, speak to any radiology resident, and the word value is thrown around effortlessly and frequently, with threat and extinction coming in distant second and third.

One of the value-added paradigms is the direct communication of results to patients. This is not without intuitive foundations. In the era of health care reform, radiologists feel aggrieved that imaging is being singled out by Washington as the chief culprit for the exponential cost curve. Washington cares when patients care. Therefore, there can be no more potent advocate than the patient.

Yet radiologists remain invisible to the eye. It is a truism that the only time a patient knows his or her interpreting radiologist is when that radiologist’s name appears on a bill for services generated. In the era of ever increasing copayments, this is more likely to engender resentment than goodwill, particularly if a patient cannot associate a face to a name.

The study by Kuhlman et al in the current issue of Academic Radiology reaffirms the indifference of patients toward radiologists. This indifference is only partially explained by the general ignorance of the central role radiologists play in the medical decision-making process, a role that seems even more implausible when referring physicians pronounce the results of computed tomographic scans with utmost authority. At the heart of this indifference is the lack of understanding of who radiologists actually are. Are they technicians or medical doctors? Do they perform computed tomographic studies or interpret the examinations? People are never confused as to the role of neurosurgeons or cardiologists.

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

References

1. Kuhlman M., Meyer M., Krupinski E.A.: Direct reporting of results to patients: the future of radiology?. Acad Radiol 2012; 19: pp. 646-650.
2. Berlin L.: The radiologist: doctor’s doctor or patient’s doctor?. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1977; 128: pp. 702.
3. Stanley v McCarver, 63 P3d 1076 (Ariz App 2003).
4. Borgstede J.P.: Radiology: commodity or specialty. Radiology 2008; 247: pp. 613-616.
5. Kuhn T.S.: The structure of scientific revolutions.3rd ed.1996.University of Chicago PressChicago
6. Fincham R.: The agent’s agent: power, knowledge, and uncertainty in management consultancy. Int Studies Manage Org 2002; 32: pp. 67-86.

Communicating Results Directly to Patients

References

Further Reading

A New Formula for Rapid Assessment of Pericardial Effusion Volume by Computed Tomography

Assessing First Year Radiology Resident Competence Pre-call

Assessing Renal Parenchymal Volume on Unenhanced CT as a Marker for Predicting Renal Function in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease