Kowalczyk Bridget, Ramis Phil, Hillman Andrew, City Regan, Stukins Elizabeth, Nallamshetty Krishna, Rohren Eric M
Department of Radiology, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas, USA (B.K.).
Radiology Partners Research Institute (RPRI), Radiology Partners, El Segundo, California (P.R.).
Acad Radiol. 2025 Jan;32(1):439-449. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2024.09.006. Epub 2024 Sep 19.
To investigate and discern if preferences and expectations regarding the stylistics of the radiology report varied across roles, specialties, and practice location amongst referring providers.
A total of 579 referring clinicians were invited to complete our survey electronically and were asked to identify themselves as either physicians or advanced practice providers (APPs), specify their specialty, and primary practice environment. They were asked to rank the three reports on appearance, formatting, level of detail, and overall preference, with additional queries about their preferences regarding literature citation inclusions and placement of dose reduction statements.
477 surveys were completed and returned for analysis, resulting in an 82.2% response rate. The most preferred reporting style was the blended report (62.5%), followed by the narrative report (18.9%) and the highly templated report (18.7%), respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in the most preferred reporting style between provider types (F(1, 475) = [0.69], p = 0.4067), between different practice settings (F(2, 474) = [2.32], p = 0.0995), and between different medical specialties (F(5, 471) = [2.23], p = 0.051). Among the three report styles, blended reporting received the highest satisfaction scores overall. The highly templated report was rated lowest for appearance and detail, while narrative reports received moderate satisfaction scores for appearance and detail. A majority favored inclusion of literature citations and similarly, the placement of dose-optimization statements at the end of the report. Preferences were consistent across specialties and practice settings.
This survey highlights that a majority of clinicians across a variety of specialties prefer a mix of structured reporting with narrative elements. The standardization of required metrics included in the radiology report may have far-reaching consequences for future reimbursement.
调查并辨别转诊医生在报告风格方面的偏好和期望是否因角色、专业和执业地点而异。
共邀请579名转诊临床医生通过电子方式完成我们的调查，并要求他们表明自己是医生还是高级执业提供者（APP），明确其专业和主要执业环境。要求他们对三份报告在外观、格式、详细程度和总体偏好方面进行排序，并就他们对文献引用包含情况和剂量减少声明位置的偏好提出额外问题。
共完成并返回477份调查问卷用于分析，回复率为82.2%。最受欢迎的报告风格是混合报告（62.5%），其次是叙述性报告（18.9%）和高度模板化报告（18.7%）。在提供者类型之间（F(1, 475) = [0.69]，p = 0.4067）、不同执业环境之间（F(2, 474) = [2.32]，p = 0.0995）以及不同医学专业之间（F(5, 471) = [2.23]，p = 0.051），最受欢迎的报告风格没有统计学上的显著差异。在三种报告风格中，混合报告总体满意度得分最高。高度模板化报告在外观和详细程度方面评分最低，而叙述性报告在外观和详细程度方面获得中等满意度评分。大多数人赞成包含文献引用，同样也赞成将剂量优化声明放在报告末尾。不同专业和执业环境的偏好一致。
本次调查突出表明，大多数不同专业的临床医生更喜欢结构化报告与叙述性元素相结合的方式。放射学报告中所需指标的标准化可能对未来的报销产生深远影响。
