Suppr超能文献

简化可读性指标可提高放射科报告质量:儿科医院超声报告实验

Simplified Readability Metric Drives Improvement of Radiology Reports: an Experiment on Ultrasound Reports at a Pediatric Hospital.

机构信息

Research Information Solutions and Innovation, Nationwide Children's Hospital, 575 Children's Crossroad, Columbus, OH, 43215, USA.

College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.

出版信息

J Digit Imaging. 2017 Dec;30(6):710-717. doi: 10.1007/s10278-017-9972-7.

Abstract

Highly complex medical documents, including ultrasound reports, are greatly mismatched with patient literacy levels. While improving radiology reports for readability is a longstanding concern, few articles objectively measure the effectiveness of physician training for readability improvement. We hypothesized that writing styles may be evaluated using an objective two-dimensional measure and writing training could improve the writing styles of radiologists. To test it, a simplified "grade vs. length" readability metric is developed based on results from factor analysis of ten readability metrics applied to more than 500,000 radiology reports. To test the short-term effectiveness of a writing workshop, we measured the writing style improvement before and after the training. Statistically significant writing style improvement occurred as a result of the training. Although the degree of improvement varied for different measures, it is evident that targeted training could provide potential benefits to improve readability due to our statistically significant results. The simplified grade vs. length metric enables future clinical decision support systems to quantitatively guide physicians to improve writing styles through writing workshops.

摘要

高度复杂的医学文献,包括超声报告,与患者的文化水平极不匹配。虽然提高放射科报告的可读性是一个长期存在的问题,但很少有文章客观地衡量医生培训对提高可读性的效果。我们假设可以使用客观的二维度量来评估写作风格,并且写作培训可以提高放射科医生的写作风格。为了验证这一点,我们根据对 50 多万份放射学报告进行的十种可读性度量的因子分析的结果,开发了一种简化的“等级与长度”可读性度量标准。为了测试写作研讨会的短期效果,我们在培训前后测量了写作风格的改进。培训后写作风格显著改善。尽管不同的测量方法的改进程度有所不同,但由于我们的统计结果具有显著性,有针对性的培训显然可以提高可读性,从而带来潜在的好处。简化的等级与长度度量标准使未来的临床决策支持系统能够通过写作研讨会来定量指导医生改善写作风格。

相似文献

2
Routine editing of trainee-generated radiology reports: effect on style quality.
Acad Radiol. 2003 Mar;10(3):289-94. doi: 10.1016/s1076-6332(03)80103-4.
3
Radiology Reporting in the Era of Patient-Centered Care: How Can We Improve Readability?
J Digit Imaging. 2021 Apr;34(2):367-373. doi: 10.1007/s10278-021-00439-0. Epub 2021 Mar 19.
4
Readability of the radiologic report.
Invest Radiol. 1992 Mar;27(3):236-9. doi: 10.1097/00004424-199203000-00012.
5
Readability of radiology reports: implications for patient-centered care.
Clin Imaging. 2019 Mar-Apr;54:116-120. doi: 10.1016/j.clinimag.2018.12.006. Epub 2018 Dec 28.
6
Improving the readability of online foot and ankle patient education materials.
Foot Ankle Int. 2014 Dec;35(12):1282-6. doi: 10.1177/1071100714550650. Epub 2014 Sep 19.
7
Radiology reports: a quantifiable and objective textual approach.
Clin Radiol. 2015 Nov;70(11):1185-91. doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2015.06.080. Epub 2015 Jul 11.
8
[The radiologic report and its readability].
Radiol Med. 2001 May;101(5):321-5.
9
[On the comprehensibility of German hospital quality reports: systematic evaluation and need for action].
Gesundheitswesen. 2009 Jan;71(1):3-9. doi: 10.1055/s-0028-1086010. Epub 2009 Jan 27.
10
Radiation Oncology and Online Patient Education Materials: Deviating From NIH and AMA Recommendations.
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016 Nov 1;96(3):521-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.06.2449. Epub 2016 Jun 25.

引用本文的文献

2
Radiology Reporting in the Era of Patient-Centered Care: How Can We Improve Readability?
J Digit Imaging. 2021 Apr;34(2):367-373. doi: 10.1007/s10278-021-00439-0. Epub 2021 Mar 19.
3
Evaluating Completeness of a Radiology Glossary Using Iterative Refinement.
J Digit Imaging. 2019 Jun;32(3):417-419. doi: 10.1007/s10278-018-0137-0.

本文引用的文献

1
2
RADPEER peer review: relevance, use, concerns, challenges, and direction forward.
J Am Coll Radiol. 2014 Sep;11(9):899-904. doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2014.02.004. Epub 2014 May 16.
3
The "open letter": radiologists' reports in the era of patient web portals.
J Am Coll Radiol. 2014 Sep;11(9):863-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2014.03.014. Epub 2014 May 16.
4
How are we communicating about clinical trials?: an assessment of the content and readability of recruitment resources.
Contemp Clin Trials. 2014 Jul;38(2):275-83. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2014.05.004. Epub 2014 May 14.
5
A critical review of the readability of online patient education resources from RadiologyInfo.Org.
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014 Mar;202(3):566-75. doi: 10.2214/AJR.13.11223.
7
Patient-centered decision making and health care outcomes: an observational study.
Ann Intern Med. 2013 Apr 16;158(8):573-9. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-158-8-201304160-00001.
9
Readability assessment of online patient education materials from academic otolaryngology-head and neck surgery departments.
Am J Otolaryngol. 2013 Jan-Feb;34(1):31-5. doi: 10.1016/j.amjoto.2012.08.001. Epub 2012 Sep 5.
10
Radiology reporting and communications: a look forward.
Neuroimaging Clin N Am. 2012 Aug;22(3):477-96. doi: 10.1016/j.nic.2012.04.009.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验