Structured reports of videofluoroscopic swallowing studies have the potential to improve overall report quality compared to free text reports.

PURPOSE

To compare free text (FTR) and structured reports (SR) of videofluoroscopic swallowing studies (VFSS) and evaluate satisfaction of referring otolaryngologists and speech therapists.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Both standard FTR and SR of 26 patients with VFSS were acquired. A dedicated template focusing on oropharyngeal phases was created for SR using online software with clickable decision-trees and concomitant generation of semantically structured reports. All reports were evaluated regarding overall quality and content, information extraction and clinical decision support (10-point Likert scale (0 = I completely disagree, 10 = I completely agree)).

RESULTS

Two otorhinolaryngologists and two speech therapists evaluated FTR and SR. SR received better ratings than FTR in all items. SR were perceived to contain more details on the swallowing phases (median rating: 10 vs. 5; P < 0.001), penetration and aspiration (10 vs. 5; P < 0.001) and facilitated information extraction compared to FTR (10 vs. 4; P < 0.001). Overall quality was rated significantly higher in SR than FTR (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

SR of VFSS provide more detailed information and facilitate information extraction. SR better assist in clinical decision-making, might enhance the quality of the report and, thus, are recommended for the evaluation of VFSS.

KEY POINTS

• Structured reports on videofluoroscopic exams of deglutition lead to improved report quality. • Information extraction is facilitated when using structured reports based on decision trees. • Template-based reports add more value to clinical decision-making than free text reports. • Structured reports receive better ratings by speech therapists and otolaryngologists. • Structured reports on videofluoroscopic exams may improve the comparability between exams.