RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

To survey North American radiologists on current practices in structured reporting and language.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An e-mail invitation was sent to the Association of University Radiologists membership (comprising 910 members) to participate in an online survey that addressed development, use, and experience of structured reporting, language, and imaging classification or reporting systems and personal dictation styles.

RESULTS

Of the 910 members e-mailed, 265 (29.1%) responded, 90.6% of whom were from academic teaching hospitals. There were no significant differences in responses based on group size or region of practice. Of all the respondents, 51.3% come from groups that developed structured reporting for at least half of their reports and only 10.9% for none. A significantly fewer 13% of respondents used rigid unmodifiable structures or checklists rather than adaptable outlines; 59.5% respondents report being satisfied or very satisfied with their structured reports, whereas a significantly fewer 13% report being dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. Structured reports were reportedly significantly more likely to be required, appreciated, and to decrease errors in departments using many structured reports compared to groups with less widespread use.

CONCLUSIONS

Most academic radiology departments are using or experimenting with structured reports. Although radiologist satisfaction with standardization is significant, there are strong opinions about their limitations and value. Our survey suggests that North American radiologists are invested in exploring structured reporting and will hopefully inform future study on how we define a standard report and how much we can centralize this process.