Advertisement

Journal of Digital Imaging

, Volume 32, Issue 6, pp 1044–1051 | Cite as

Unlocking Radiology Reporting Data: an Implementation of Synoptic Radiology Reporting in Low-Dose CT Cancer Screening

  • Alexander K. GoelEmail author
  • Debbie DiLella
  • Gus Dotsikas
  • Maria Hilts
  • David Kwan
  • Lindsay Paxton
Article
  • 105 Downloads

Abstract

Cancer Care Ontario (CCO) is the clinical advisor to the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care for the funding and delivery of cancer services. Data contained in radiology reports are inaccessible for analysis without significant manual cost and effort. Synoptic reporting includes highly structured reporting and discrete data capture, which could unlock these data for clinical and evaluative purposes. To assess the feasibility of implementing synoptic radiology reporting, a trial implementation was conducted at one hospital within CCO’s Lung Cancer Screening Pilot for People at High Risk. This project determined that it is feasible to capture synoptic data with some barriers. Radiologists require increased awareness when reporting cases with a large number of nodules due to lack of automation within the system. These challenges may be mitigated by implementation of some report automation. Domains such as pathology and public health reporting have addressed some of these challenges with standardized reports based on interoperable standards, and radiology could borrow techniques from these domains to assist in implementing synoptic reporting. Data extraction from the reports could also be significantly automated to improve the process and reduce the workload in collecting the data. RadLex codes aided the difficult data extraction process, by helping label potential ambiguity with common terms and machine-readable identifiers.

Keywords

Synoptic Reporting Structured Reporting Structured Data capture RadLex  

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge, the Emerging Programs Team at CCO, the Lakeridge Health Team, and the Cancer Imaging Program at CCO.

References

  1. 1.
    American College of Radiologists: Lung Rads. 2018. Retrieved May 16, 2018, from https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Reporting-and-Data-Systems/Lung-Rads
  2. 2.
    Barchard KA, Pace LA: Preventing human error: The impact of data entry methods on data accuracy and statistical results. Comput Hum Behav 27(5):1834–1839, 2011.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.04.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    College of American Pathologists: CAP eCC [text/html]. 2019. Retrieved December 3, 2018, from https://www.cap.org/laboratory-improvement/proficiency-testing/cap-ecc
  4. 4.
    Digital Bridge: Digital Bridge eCR functional requirements statements. Digital Bridge, 2017. Retrieved from http://www.digitalbridge.us/db/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Digital-Bridge-eCR-Functional-Requirements.pdf
  5. 5.
    Dobranowski J: Structured reporting in Cancer imaging: Reaching the quality dimension in communication. Health Manag 15(4), 2015. Retrieved from https://healthmanagement.org/c/healthmanagement/issuearticle/structured-reporting-in-cancer-imaging-reaching-the-quality-dimension-in-communication
  6. 6.
    Harvey H: Synoptic reporting makes better radiologists, and algorithms. 2018. Retrieved July 16, 2018, from https://towardsdatascience.com/synoptic-reporting-makes-better-radiologists-and-algorithms-9755f3da511a
  7. 7.
    Integrating the Healthcare Enterprise (IHE): Structured Data Capture (SDC) Rev. 2.1 – Trial Implementation. 2016. Retrieved December 17, 2018, from https://ihe.net/uploadedFiles/Documents/QRPH/IHE_QRPH_Suppl_SDC.pdf
  8. 8.
    Johnson AJ, Chen MYM, Swan JS, Applegate KE, Littenberg B: Cohort study of structured reporting compared with conventional dictation. Radiology 253(1):74–80, 2009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    National Center for Biomedical Ontology: Radiology lexicon - summary | NCBO BioPortal. 2018. Retrieved July 9, 2018, from http://bioportal.bioontology.org/ontologies/RADLEX
  10. 10.
    Segall N, Saville JG, L’Engle P, Carlson B, Wright MC, Schulman K, Tcheng JE: Usability Evaluation of a Personal Health Record. AMIA Ann Symp Proc 2011:1233–1242, 2011Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Srigley JR, McGowan T, MacLean A, Raby M, Ross J, Kramer S, Sawka C: Standardized synoptic cancer pathology reporting: A population-based approach. J Surg Oncol 99(8):517–524, 2009.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.21282 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Imaging Informatics in Medicine 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cancer Care OntarioTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Lakeridge HealthOshawaCanada

Personalised recommendations