Automatic Release of Radiology Reports via an Online Patient Portal (original) (raw)
Related papers
Patient Access to Radiology Reports: What Do Physicians Think?
Journal of the American College of Radiology, 2010
The aim of this study was to seek physicians' perspectives on radiology reporting systems, so that reporting systems can begin to be reorganized and made more patient centered by giving patients greater access to their personal health information. Methods: Focus-group methodology was used to explore physicians' views on direct patient access to radiologic test results. Subjects for the two groups were physicians at a single academic medical center. Transcripts were analyzed using thematic content analysis. Results: Most participants were dissatisfied with current reporting systems. Both radiologists and referring physicians (RPs) were aware that patients are not satisfied with the current system for notification of radiologic test results, and both thought that patients should have access to personal health information and take responsibility for their own health care. Regarding direct patient online access to results, both radiologists and RPs were concerned that patients would not understand report contents and that such access would lead to greater patient anxiety and demands on RPs' time. Referring physicians were also concerned that direct patient access to results would cause RPs to lose some control in the patient-physician relationship. Both radiologists and RPs preferred that any system for direct patient access incorporate a time delay and be tested for effect before being implemented. Conclusions: Revisions attempting to increase the patient-centeredness of care in the area of radiology reporting should be developed and tested to 1) minimize adverse effects on patient anxiety; 2) optimize timing, considering effects on both patients and RPs; and 3) simultaneously address problems with between-physician reporting methods.
Journal of the American College of Radiology, 2020
Objective: Patients increasingly access radiology results through digital portals. We compared patient satisfaction and understanding of radiology results when received through an electronic patient portal versus direct communication from providers. Methods: Patients were invited to participate in an online survey within 7 days of undergoing a radiology examination. Participants received one of two survey versions, based on whether or not they viewed results in the patient portal. The associations between method of result notification and satisfaction with notification timing and self-reported understanding of results were evaluated using c 2 tests and logistic regression. Results: Of 1,005 survey respondents, 87.8% (882 of 1,005) reported having received their imaging test results, with 486 (48.4%) first being notified through the patient portal and 396 (39.4%) via direct provider communication. Patients reported high levels of satisfaction with timing regardless of whether they first received the results through the patient portal or through direct provider communication (88.8%-89.9%). Patients who first received their results through the patient portal reported a lesser degree of perceived understanding than those who first received their results through direct provider communication (26.7% versus 47.8%; P < .001). Patients were less likely to report clear understanding for advanced imaging (CT or MRI) than ultrasound or x-rays (29.3% versus 40.3% versus 38.2%, respectively; P ¼ .02). Patient characteristics showed no association with understanding in multivariable analysis. Conclusion: As online portal release of radiology results to patients becomes commonplace, efforts may be warranted to improve patient experience when first receiving their radiology results online.
The "open letter": radiologists' reports in the era of patient web portals
Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR, 2014
Historically, radiologists' official written reports have functionally been proprietary communications between radiologists and referring providers. Although never secret, these reports have traditionally been archived in the medical record, with tightly controlled access. Patients rarely viewed reports directly. As patient-centered care, transparent communication, and electronic archiving have converged, however, radiologists' reports, like many other medical record components, are increasingly accessible to patients via web-based "portals." Many radiologists harbor justified anxiety about whether and how radiology reports should change in response to these portals. Direct patient access to radiology reports raises several questions, including: who are reports really for, what is their essential purpose, what content should they include or omit, what limits should be…
Clinicians' Behavior Toward Radiology Reports: A Cross-Sectional Study
Cureus, 2020
Background The radiology report is the way of communication between the radiologists and the clinicians of different specialties. Each part of the report is important and significant in the patient management plan. Therefore, knowledge of interpretation and behavior in understanding the final report is a variable crucial skill. Methods This is a cross-sectional survey study to explore the behavior and attitude of clinicians toward radiology reports in relation to their professional clinical demographic. A total of 107 physicians participated, including consultants, specialists, and residents among different specialties. Results Among the 107 responses, 58.9% were male and 41.1% were female. The majority of the physicians (78.5%) read the radiology report for every requested study for each patient, while 21.5% of participants didn't read the radiology report for the studies they requested, instead, they only read it occasionally. Gender played a significant factor, as female practitioners were more likely to read the complete radiology report (P = 0.033). In addition, the age of the practitioner was also significant as clinicians in the age group 40-60 years old were more likely to check the requested radiology image prior to reading the report compared to age groups 20-39 and >60 years (P = 0.035). Lastly, specialists were significantly more likely to read the entire radiology report compared to consultants and residents (P = 0.006). Conclusion More emphasis and awareness should be provided to clinicians on the importance of reading the entire radiology report as some information can be missed if not being read completely.
Quality of radiologists’ communication with other clinicians—As experienced by radiologists
Patient Education and Counseling, 2015
Mutual understanding in inter-professional communication is of paramount importance in health care [1]. With the introduction of electronic communication, traditional inter-professional communication is challenged. This is particularly evident in radiology, where communication of radiological images and reports now can be achieved electronically, based on digital picture and archiving systems (PACS) [2]. Thereby, images and reports can be reached instantly and simultaneously in e.g. surgical theatres, wards and outpatient clinics, and at remote sites outside hospitals. This is in sharp contrast to the traditional way of conveying imaging results, showing images on light-boxes and storing the only copy of the analogue film in the radiology file room. In parallel, many radiology departments strive for ''paper-free'' communication with clinicians, replacing paper referral forms with electronic referrals (and reports). PACS has clearly facilitated technical communication of imaging data [2], and also impacts work routines in radiology [3]. However, it has also been shown that consultations with radiologists decreased when hard copy films were replaced by workstations [4], but reports on effects on communication between radiologists and referring clinicians are conflicting [5]. The other aspect of inter-professional communication relates to its information value. The quality of communication from referring clinicians to radiologists has significant impact on clinical patient handling and safety [6-10]. Thus, request forms with adequate clinical information are essential to guide the radiologist and technician in planning and performing the examination and to obtain a correct diagnosis [11] and a clinically useful radiology report [12]. A previous study showed that of 100 request forms sent for MRI, 63% contained poor or insufficient information [13]. Inadequate communication of clinical data from referring clinicians to radiologists may have significant impact on diagnosis, cost and
Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR, 2018
The aim of this study was to evaluate radiologists' experiences with patient interactions in the era of open access of patients to radiology reports. This prospective, nonrandom survey of staff and trainee radiologists (n = 128) at a single large academic institution was performed with approval from the institutional review board with a waiver of the requirement to obtain informed consent. A multiple-choice questionnaire with optional free-text comments was constructed with an online secure platform (REDCap) and distributed via departmental e-mail between June 1 and July 31, 2016. Participation in the survey was voluntary and anonymous, and responses were collected and aggregated via REDCap. Statistical analysis of categorical responses was performed with the χ test, with statistical significance defined as P < .05. Almost three-quarters of surveys (73.4% [94 of 128]) were completed. Staff radiologists represented 54.3% of survey respondents (51 of 94) and trainees 45.7% (43 ...
Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, 2017
Currently, there is a growing need for patient-centered radiology in which radiologists communicate with patients directly. The aim of this study is to investigate the preferences of referring physicians (RPs) regarding direct communication between radiologists and patients. METHODS This study was conducted in a single academic hospital using a survey form. The survey items investigated the preferences of RPs regarding: 1. who should be the communicator of test results when a patient with abnormal findings requests information (the options were the radiologist; another health professional with communication skills training (CST); and the RP with CST); and 2. how the communication activity should be conducted if the radiologist is obliged (or chooses) to communicate with the patient directly (the options were that the disclosure should be limited to the findings in the radiology report; the radiologist should emphasize that the RP is the primary physician; and the communication activity should be conducted in accordance with guidelines established by consensus). The respondents were 101 RPs from various fields of specialty; they were asked to rate the items using a 5-point Likert scale. The effects of age, sex, field of specialty (surgical vs. nonsurgical), and total years of experience as a medical specialist on the ratings were statistically compared. RESULTS Most RPs preferred that the radiologist transmit the information to the RP without communicating directly with the patient (89.1%). Although 69.3% of the RPs declared that health professionals with CST have priority in communication, 86.1% declared that the RP should be the person who received CST. If the radiologist communicates with patients directly, the RPs favored that 1. the disclosure should be limited to the findings in the radiology report (95%); 2. the communication activity should include an emphasis on the RP as the patient's primary agent (84.1%); and 3. communication should be conducted in accordance with guidelines established by consensus (73.2%). The percentage of strong opinions did not change significantly with regard to age, sex, field of specialty, or total years of experience, except that surgeons expressed strong disagreement with delegating the communication activity to another health professional who received CST (χ² = 9.9; P = 0.042). CONCLUSION These findings may serve as a basis to implement institutional and national policies for patient-centered radiology. 82 • January-February 2017 • Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology Erdoğan et al. Communicating radiology results to patients • 85
How do referring clinicians want radiologists to report? Suggestions from the COVER survey
Insights into imaging, 2011
OBJECTIVE: To investigate what referring clinicians suggest when asked how the quality of radiology reports can be improved. METHODS: At the end of the questionnaire of the COVER survey, a bi-national quantitative survey on the radiology report among referring physicians, clinical specialists and general practitioners were able to freely enter suggestions with regard to improving the quality of the report. These suggestions were isolated from the quantitative results. Subjects and themes were identified, examined, ordered, counted, compared and analysed. RESULTS: Of a total of 3,884 invitations to participate, we received 735 response forms from clinicians (18.9%), 233 (31.7%) of which contained suggestions. Issues mentioned most frequently were the need for clinical information and a clinical question, for a conclusion, structuring, communicating directly with the clinician, completeness, integrating images or referring to images, mentioning relevant findings outside of the clinica...
Insights into imaging, 2012
To determine why, despite growing evidence that radiologists and referring physicians prefer structured reporting (SR) to free text (FT) reporting, SR has not been widely adopted in most radiology departments. A focus group was formed consisting of 11 radiology professionals from eight countries. Eight topics were submitted for discussion. The meeting was videotaped, transcribed, and analyzed according to the principles of qualitative healthcare research. Perceived advantages of SR were facilitation of research, easy comparison, discouragement of ambiguous reports, embedded links to images, highlighting important findings, not having to dictate text nobody will read, and automatic translation of teleradiology reports. Being compelled to report within a rigid frame was judged unacceptable. Personal convictions appeared to have high emotional value. It was felt that other healthcare stakeholders would impose SR without regard to what radiologists thought of it. If the industry were to...
Communicating Critical Results in Radiology
Journal of the American College of Radiology, 2010
Compliance with the communication of critical diagnoses is mandated by the Joint Commission's National Patient Safety Goal 2 (NPSG-2), "Improve the Effectiveness of Communication Among Caregivers," which addresses the communication of critical laboratory and radiologic findings to referring providers. The salient features of compliance with NPSG-2 are timely and direct communication with referring providers, or the maintenance of a verifiable record of communication, and timely escalation of fail-safe processes when referring providers are not immediately available [1]. There are presently two methods to achieve compliance when communicating critical diagnoses in radiology: manual inhouse and commercial automated approaches. The former is labor intensive and fraught with trial and error. The latter is software driven, was costly, and had poor acceptance due to real or perceived inability to discuss critical results with radiologists and clinicians' dismay at being disturbed after hours for diagnoses they do not consider critical. The full implementation of critical communication requires buy-in by radiologists as well as hospital administration and the referring physicians on the medical staff. Nationwide, to date, the introduction of policies for critical communication in radiology departments has met with only varied success. In an imaging performance partnership survey of 92 departments, only 31% achieved compliance with a critical results communication rate of 90% [2]. According to a Joint Commis