Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Structured Radiology Reporting: Addressing the Communication Quality Gap

  • Imaging
  • Published:
SN Comprehensive Clinical Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Ineffective communication in healthcare contributes to patient morbidity and mortality. Understanding why failures in communication occur requires an understanding of how healthcare professionals communicate and models explaining the communication process. Radiologists communicate most commonly using the radiology report. Worldwide it is estimated that billions of radiological examinations are performed annually. The quality of each radiology report can contribute to patient care either in a positive manner leading to better outcomes or can be a source of medical error. Recent articles highlight quality gaps in radiology reports related not only to accuracy but also to clarity and completeness. We review and highlight the gaps related to the quality of radiology reports and discuss strategies to improve effective communication.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Makary MA, Daniel M. Medical error—the third leading cause of death in the US. BMJ. 2016;353:i2139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. James JTA. A new, evidence-based estimate of patient harms associated with hospital care. J Patient Saf. 2013;9(3):122–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Cohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS. To err is human: building a safer health system. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Woolf SH, Kuzel AJ, Dovey SM, Phillips RL Jr. A string of mistakes: the importance of cascade analysis in describing, counting, and preventing medical errors. Ann Fam Med. 2004;2(4):317–26.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Lingard LS, Espin S, Whyte G, et al. Communication failures in the operating room: an observational classification of recurrent types and effects. Qual Saf Health Care. 2004;13:330–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Leonard M, Graham S, Bonacum D. The human factor: the critical importance of effective teamwork and communication in providing safe care. Qual Saf Health Care. 2004;13(Suppl 1):i85–90.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. 2005 National patient safety goals. Available at: www.jointcommission.org/PatientSafety/NationalPatientSafetyGoals/. Accessed 6 Feb 2008.

  8. Larson DB, Froehle CM, Johnson NDAJ. Communication in diagnostic radiology: meeting the challenges of complexity. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014;203(5):957–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Reiner BI. Strategies for radiology reporting and communication. J Digit Imaging. 2014;27(1):1–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Duncan KA, et al. Audit of radiology communication systems for critical, urgent, and unexpected significant findings. Clin Radiol. 2016;71(3):265–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. American College of Radiology (2008) ACR practice guideline for the communication of diagnostic imaging findings. Available at: https://www.acr.org/-/media/ACR/Files/Practice-Parameters/CommunicationDiag.pdf. Accessed 12 April 2018.

  12. Good practice for radiological reporting. Guidelines from the European Society of Radiology (ESR) Insights Imaging. 2011; 2:93–96.

  13. CAR standard for communication in diagnostic radiology. Canadian Association of Radiologists, Ottawa; 2010. Available at: https://car.ca/wp-content/uploads/Communication-of-Diagnostic-Imaging-Findings.pdf. Accessed 12 April 2018.

  14. Board of the Faculty of Clinical Radiology. Standards for the reporting and interpretation of imaging investigations. London: Royal College of Radiologists; 2006. Available at: https://www.rcr.ac.uk/sites/default/files/bfcr061_standardsforreporting.pdf. Accessed 12 April 2018.

  15. Pool F, Goergen S. Quality of the written radiology report: a review of the literature. J Am Coll Radiol. 2010;7(8):634–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Naik SS, Hanbidge A, Wilson SR. Radiology reports: examining radiologist and clinician preferences regarding style and content. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001;176:591–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Brook OR, Brook A, Vollmer CM, Kent TS, Sanchez N, Pedrosa I. Structured reporting of multiphasic CT for pancreatic cancer: potential effect on staging and surgical planning. Radiology. 2015;274(2):464–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Nörenberg D, Sommer WH, Thasler W, et al. Structured reporting of rectal magnetic resonance imaging in suspected primary rectal cancer: potential benefits for surgical planning and interdisciplinary communication. Investig Radiol. 2017;52(4):232–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Wildman-Tobriner B, Allen BC, Davis JT, Miller CM, Schooler GR, McGreal NM, et al. Structured reporting of magnetic resonance enterography for pediatric Crohn’s disease: effect on key feature reporting and subjective assessment of disease by referring physicians. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 2017;46:110–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. “Communication.” OED Online. March 2018. Oxford University Press. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/communication. Accessed 12 April 2018.

  21. “Communication.” Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster Incorporated. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/communication. Accessed 12 April 2018.

  22. Keyton J. Communication and organizational culture: a key to understanding work experience. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Miller K. Communication theories: perspectives, processes, and contexts. 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill Higher Education; 2004.

  24. Shannon CE, Weaver W. The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press; 1949.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Schwartz F, Lowe M, Sinclair L. Communication in health care: considerations and strategies for successful consumer and team dialogue hypothesis 2010, 8(1): e7.

  26. Mortensen CD. Communication: the study of human interaction. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1972.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Fallowfield L, Jenkins V. Effective communication skills are the key to good cancer care. Eur J Cancer. 1999;35(11):1592–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Stewart MA. Effective physician-patient communication and health outcomes: a review. CMAJ. 1995;152(9):1423–33.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Levinson W, Roter DL, Mullooly JP, Dull VT, Frankel RM. Physician-patient communication: the relationship with malpractice claims among primary care physicians and surgeons. JAMA. 1997;277(7):553–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Hirsch FR, Scagliotti GV, Mulshine JL, Kwon R, Curran WJ Jr, Wu YL, et al. Lung cancer: current therapies and new targeted treatments. Lancet. 2017;389(10066):299–311.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Mohorek M, Webb TP. Establishing a conceptual framework for handoffs using communication theory. J Surg Educ. 2015;7(3):402–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Brady AP. Error and discrepancy in radiology: inevitable or avoidable? Insights Imaging. 2017;8:171–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Murphy D, Singh H, Berlin L. Communication breakdowns and diagnostic errors: a radiology perspective. Diagnosis. 2014;1(4):253–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Dobranowski J. Structured reporting in cancer imaging: reaching the quality dimension in communication. HealthManagement.org. Available at; https://healthmanagement.org/c/healthmanagement/issuearticle/structured-reporting-in-cancer-imaging-reaching-the-quality-dimension-in-communication. Accessed 12 April 2018.

  35. Institute of Medicine. Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the twenty-first century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). Your guide to choosing quality health care. Available at: https://archive.ahrq.gov/consumer/qnt/. Accessed 12 April 2018.

  37. Cancer System Quality Index (CSQI). Cancer Quality Council of Ontario (CQCO). Available at: http://www.csqi.on.ca/. Accessed 12 April 2018.

  38. What do we mean by appropriate health care? Report of a working group prepared for the Director of Research and Development of the NHS Management Executive. BMJ Qual Saf 1993; 2:117–123.

  39. Marcal LP, Fox PS, Evans DB, Fleming JB, Varadhachary GR, Katz MH, et al. Analysis of free-form radiology dictations for completeness and clarity for pancreatic cancer staging. Abdom Imaging. 2015;40(7):2391–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Sahni VA, Silveira PC, Sainani NI. Impact of a structured report template on the quality of MRI reports for rectal cancer staging. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015;205(3):584–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Ghali Eskander M, Leung A, Lee D. Style and content of CT and MR imaging lumbar spine reports: radiologist and clinician preferences. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 31:1842–7.

  42. Dickerson E, Davenport MS, Syed F, Stuve O, Cohen JA, Rinker JR, et al. Effect of template reporting of brain MRIs for multiple sclerosis on report thoroughness and neurologist-rated quality: results of a prospective quality improvement project. J Am Coll Radiol. 2017;14(3):371–9 e1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Lin E, Powell DK, Kagetsu NJ. Efficacy of a checklist-style structured radiology reporting template in reducing resident misses on cervical spine computed tomography examinations. J Digit Imaging. 2014;27(5):588–93.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Sheehan JJ, Ridge CA, Ward EVM, Duffy GJ, Collins CD, Skehan SJ, et al. The process of evidence-based practice in radiology: an introduction. Acad Radiol. 2007;14(4):385–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Troude P, Dozol A, Soyer P. Improvement of radiology requisition. Diagn Interv Imaging. 2014;95(1):69–75.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Kluger AN, DeNisi A. The effects of feedback interventions on performance: a historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychol Bull. 1996;119(2):254–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Mahgerefteh S, Kruskal JB, Yam CS, Blachar A, Sosna J. Peer review in diagnostic radiology: current state and a vision for the future. Radiographics. 2009;29(5):1221–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Rathachai K, Hani A. Peer review in clinical radiology practice. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;199(2):W158–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Foronda C, MacWilliams B, McArthur E. Interprofessional communication in healthcare: an integrative review. Nurse Educ Pract. 2016;19:36–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Gawande A. The checklist manifesto: how to get things right. New York: Metropolitan Books; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Ellis DW, Srigley J. Does standardised structured reporting contribute to quality in diagnostic pathology? The importance of evidence-based datasets. Virchows Arch. 2016;468(1):51–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Synoptic radiology reporting for cancer imaging. Cancer Care Ontario. Available at: https://www.cancercareontario.ca/sites/ccocancercare/files/assets/CCOSynopticRadiologyImagingReport.pdf. Accessed 12 April 2018.

  53. European Society of Radiology. ESR communication guidelines for radiologists. Insights Imaging. 2013;4:143–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Kahn CE Jr, Langlotz CP, Burnside ES, et al. Toward best practices in radiology reporting. Radiology 2009. 2009;252(3):852–6.

    Google Scholar 

  55. “ Structured reporting”. PubMed. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=structured+reporting. Accessed 4 Jan 2018.

  56. Leipsic J, Abbara S, Achenbach S, Cury R, Earls JP, Mancini GBJ, et al. SCCT guidelines for the interpretation and reporting of coronary CT angiography: a report of the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography Guidelines Committee. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2014;8(5):342–58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Durack JC. The value proposition of structured reporting in interventional radiology. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014;203:734–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Gholamrezanezhad A, Kessler M, Hayeri SM. The need for standardization of musculoskeletal practice reporting: learning from ACR BI-RADS, liver imaging–reporting and data system, and prostate imaging–reporting and data system. J Am Coll Radiol. 2017;14(12):1585–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Weiss DL, Langlotz CP. Structured reporting: patient care enhancement or productivity nightmare? Radiology. 2008;249(3):739–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, Cornud F, Haider MA, Macura KJ, et al. PI-RADS prostate imaging-reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol. 2016;69(1):16–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. American College of Radiology. ACRassist. Available at: http://www.acrinformatics.org/acr-assist. Accessed 12 April 2018.

  62. American College of Radiology. Liver reporting and data system (Li-RADS). Available at: https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Reporting-and-Data-Systems/LI-RADS. Accessed 4 Jan 2018.

  63. American College of Radiology. Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS). Available at: https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Reporting-and-Data-Systems/Lung-Rads. Accessed 4 Jan 2018.

  64. American College of Radiology. Thyroid imaging reporting and data system (Ti-RADS). Available at: https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Reporting-and-Data-Systems/TI-RADS. Accessed 4 Jan 2018.

  65. American College of Radiology. ACR Bi-RADS Atlas 5th edition (BiRADS). Available at: https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Reporting-and-Data-Systems/Bi-Rads. Accessed 4 Jan 2018.

  66. American College of Radiology. Head injury imaging reporting and data system (Hi-RADS). Available at: https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Reporting-and-Data-Systems/HI-RADS. Accessed 4 Jan 2018.

  67. Berland LL, Silverman SG, Gore RM, Mayo-Smith WW, Megibow AJ, Yee J, et al. Managing incidental findings on abdominal CT: white paper of the ACR incidental findings committee. J Am Coll Radiol. 2010;7(10):754–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Radiological Society of North America . RSNA reporting initiative. Available at: www.radreport.org. Accessed 12 April 2018.

  69. Bosmans JML, Peremans L, Menni M, de Schepper AM, Duyck PO, Parizel PM. Structured reporting: if, why, when, how—and at what expense? Results of a focus group meeting of radiology professionals from eight countries. Insights into Imaging. 2012;3(3):295–302.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Powell DK, Silberzweig JE. State of structured reporting in radiology, a survey. Acad Radiol. 2015;22(2):226–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Gunderman RB, McNeive LR. Is structured reporting the answer? Radiology. 2014;273(1):7–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Srinivasa Babu A, Brooks ML. The malpractice liability of radiology reports: minimizing the risk. Radiographics. 2015;35(2):547–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Hall FM. The radiology report of the future. Radiology. 2009;251:313–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Kotter JP. Leading change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press; 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Srinivasan M, Liederman E, Baluyot N, Jacoby R. Saving time, improving satisfaction: the impact of a digital radiology system on physician workflow and system efficiency. J Healthc Inf Manag. 2006;20(2):123–31.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Nitrosi A, Borasi G, Nicoli F, Modigliani G, Botti A, Bertolini M, et al. A filmless radiology department in a full digital regional hospital: quantitative evaluation of the increased quality and efficiency. J Digit Imaging. 2007;20(2):140–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  77. Sluijter CE, van Lonkhuijzen LR, van Slooten HJ, et al. The effects of implementing synoptic pathology reporting in cancer diagnosis: a systematic review. Virchows Arch. 2016;468(6):639–49.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  78. Quattrocchi CC, Giona A, Di Martino AC, et al. Extra-spinal incidental findings at lumbar spine MRI in the general population: a large cohort study. Insights Imaging. 2013;4:301–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  79. Semaan HB, Bieszczad JE, Obri T, Aldinger PK, Bazerbashi MF, al-Natour MS, et al. Incidental extraspinal findings at lumbar spine magnetic resonance imaging: a retrospective study. Spine. 2015;40(18):1436–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Srigley J, Lankshear S, Brierley J, McGowan T, Divaris D, Yurcan M, et al. Closing the quality loop: facilitating improvement in oncology practice through timely access to clinical performance indicators. J Oncol Pract. 2013;9(5):e255–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

    Julian Dobranowski

  2. Medical Imaging, Niagara Health System, 1200 Fourth Avenue, St. Catharines, Ontario, L2S 0A9, Canada

    Julian Dobranowski

  3. Cancer Imaging Program, Cancer Care Ontario, 620 University Ave., Toronto, Ontario, M5G 2L7, Canada

    Julian Dobranowski

  4. Smart Reporting GmbH, Brienner Str. 11, 80805, Munich, Germany

    Wieland Sommer

Authors
  1. Julian Dobranowski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wieland Sommer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julian Dobranowski.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Julian Dobranowski declares to have no conflicts of interest. Wieland Sommer declares that he is the founder of “Smart Reporting,” a company for structured reporting.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Imaging

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dobranowski, J., Sommer, W. Structured Radiology Reporting: Addressing the Communication Quality Gap. SN Compr. Clin. Med. 1, 397–407 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42399-019-00066-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42399-019-00066-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation