Department of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, University of Naples "Federico II", Naples, Italy.
Department of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, University of Naples "Federico II", Naples, Italy.
Eur J Radiol. 2021 May;138:109621. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2021.109621. Epub 2021 Mar 1.
To assess clinician satisfaction with structured (SR) and conventional (CR) radiological reports for chest CT exams in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients, objectively comparing both reporting strategies.
We retrospectively included 68 CTs (61 patients) with COVID-19. CRs were collected from the digital database while corresponding SRs were written by an expert radiologist, including a sign checklist, severity score index and final impressions. New CRs were prepared for a random subset (n = 10) of cases, to allow comparisons in reporting time and word count. CRs were analyzed to record severity score and final impressions inclusion. A random subset of 40 paired CRs and SRs was evaluated by two clinicians to assess, using a Likert scale, readability, comprehensiveness, comprehensibility, conciseness, clinical impact, and overall quality.
Overall, 19/68 (28 %) and 9/68 (13 %) of CRs included final impressions and severity score, respectively. SR writing required significantly (p < 0.001) less time (mean = 308 s; SD ± 60 s) compared to CRs (mean = 458 s; SD ± 72 s). On the other hand, word count was not significantly different (p = 0.059, median = 100 and 106, range = 106-139 and 88-131 for SRs and CRs, respectively). Both clinicians expressed significantly (all p < 0.01) higher scores for SRs compared to CRs in all categories.
Our study supports the use of chest CT SRs in COVID-19 patients to improve referring physician satisfaction, optimizing reporting time and provide a greater amount and quality of information within the report.
评估临床医生对新冠肺炎患者胸部 CT 检查的结构化报告（SR）和常规报告（CR）的满意度，客观比较两种报告策略。
我们回顾性纳入了 68 例新冠肺炎患者的 CT 检查（61 例患者）。CR 从数字数据库中收集，而相应的 SR 则由一名专家放射科医生编写，包括一个征象检查表、严重程度评分指数和最终印象。为了随机选择一部分（n=10）病例进行比较，新的 CR 也进行了准备，以比较报告时间和字数。分析 CR 以记录严重程度评分和最终印象的纳入情况。随机选择了 40 对 CR 和 SR 进行评估，由两名临床医生使用李克特量表评估可读性、全面性、可理解性、简洁性、临床影响和整体质量。
总体而言，19/68（28%）和 9/68（13%）的 CR 分别包括最终印象和严重程度评分。与 CR（平均=458 秒；SD±72 秒）相比，SR 书写明显（p<0.001）耗时更短（平均=308 秒；SD±60 秒）。另一方面，字数没有显著差异（p=0.059，中位数分别为 100 和 106，范围分别为 106-139 和 88-131，SR 和 CR 分别为 100 和 106，范围分别为 106-139 和 88-131）。两位临床医生在所有类别中均表示对 SR 的评分明显（均 p<0.01）高于 CR。
我们的研究支持在新冠肺炎患者中使用胸部 CT SR，以提高主治医生的满意度，优化报告时间，并在报告中提供更多数量和质量的信息。
