Rationale and Objectives
To investigate current practice regarding the release of resident’s preliminary imaging reports to physicians providing clinical care to patients. The second objective was to evaluate compliance with the American College of Radiology (ACR) practice guidelines.
Materials and Methods
With the assistance of the Society of Chairman of Academic Radiology Departments (SCARD), a survey was sent to its members. This survey asked if members felt that residents’ preliminary reports should be released to referring physicians. If yes, the survey requested information as to how this was done and the mechanism by which the referring physicians were informed that the report was preliminary.
Results
Twenty-eight surveys were completed. Twenty-five respondents felt that preliminary reports should always be made easily available to referring physicians; three did not. In 25 of 28 institutions, the referring clinicians can obtain preliminary information by talking to the trainee face-to-face or by phone. In 12 institutions, clinicians could obtain preliminary reports by phoning into the hospital dictation system and listening to the dictated report. Twenty-six of the 28 institutions permit referring clinicians to obtain preliminary reports by viewing/reading these reports in picture archiving and communication system (PACS) or hospital information system (HIS) systems, before they are finalized.
Conclusions
Almost all academic radiology departments responding to this survey do make electronic trainee reports available to referring clinicians. Compliance with ACR guidelines is good, but not perfect. Most institutions no longer provide the ability to listen to the dictation.
“Effective communication is a critical component of diagnostic imaging. Quality patient care can only be delivered when study results are conveyed in a timely fashion.” This quotation from the American College of Radiology (ACR) practice guidelines for 2006, is part of the general introduction of the section on communication of diagnostic imaging findings ( ). Although not specifically directed at preliminary radiology reports, its message is clear. Improving communication between radiologists and referring physicians is an opportunity for improving quality of care ( ).
Radiology imaging reports are judged and evaluated using several different criteria. It is not the intent of this manuscript to deal with the content of the report, its layout, its length, or its accuracy. Imaging reports are also judged by the time taken to generate and distribute the report. In an academic radiology department, this time may be extended because of delays between dictation of a preliminary report by a radiology resident or fellow and finalization of the report by a faculty member. The objectives of this study were to evaluate current practice in academic radiology departments, regarding release of preliminary reports to referring clinicians. A secondary objective was to correlate current practice with guidelines of the ACR.
Methods
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
1. A Final Report
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
2. A Preliminary Report
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
3. Preliminary Information
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Results
Question 1
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Question 2
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Question 3
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Question 4
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Discussion
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Conclusion
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Appendix
SCARD Survey: Making Preliminary Reports Available to Referring Physicians
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Survey Questions
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
References
1. Communication of diagnostic imaging finding; communication other than the final diagnostic report. 2006 ACR Practice guidelines and technical standards.
2. Garvey C., Connolly S.: Radiology reporting—where does the radiologists duty end?. Lancet 2006; 367: pp. 433-435.
3. Berlin L.: Communicating radiology results. Lancet 2006; 367: pp. 373-375.
4. Kushner D., Lucey L.: Diagnostic radiology reporting and communication: the ACR guideline. J Am Coll Radiol 2005; 2: pp. 15-21.
5. Seltzer S.E., Hessel S.J., Herman P.G., et. al.: Resident film interpretations and staff review. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1981; 137: pp. 129-133.
6. Larson D.B.: Major changes in radiology residency program requirements are coming. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007; 188: pp. 3-4.
7. Strub W.M., Leach J.L., Ying J., et. al.: First year radiology residents not taking call: will there be a difference?. Emerg Radiol 2007; 13: pp. 231-235.
8. Holman B.L., Aliabadi P., Silverman S.G., et. al.: Medical impact of unedited preliminary radiology reports. Radiology 1994; 191: pp. 519-521.
9. Carney E., Kempf J., DeCarvalho V., et. al.: Preliminary interpretations of after-hours CT and sonography by radiology residents versus final interpretations by body imaging radiologists at a level 1 trauma center. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003; 181: pp. 367-373.
10. Tieng N., Grinberg D., Li S.F.: Discrepancies in interpretation of ED body computed tomographic scans by radiology residents. Am J Emerg Med 2007; 25: pp. 45-48.
11. Branstetter B.F., Morgan M.B., Nesbit C.E., et. al.: Preliminary reports in the emergency department: is a subspecialist radiologist more accurate than a radiology resident?. Acad Radiol 2007; 14: pp. 201-206.