Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Impact of patient questionnaires on completeness of clinical information and identification of causes of pain during outpatient abdominopelvic CT interpretation

  • Innovations in quality
  • Published:
Abdominal Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the impact of questionnaires completed by patients at the time of abdominopelvic CT performed for abdominal pain on the completeness of clinical information and the identification of potential causes of pain, compared with order requisitions alone.

Methods

100 outpatient CT examinations performed for the evaluation of abdominal pain were retrospectively reviewed. The specificity of the location of pain was compared between the order requisition and patient questionnaire. An abdominal imaging fellow (Reader 1) and abdominal radiologist (Reader 2) reviewed the examinations independently in two sessions 6 weeks apart (one with only the order requisition and one also with the questionnaire). Readers recorded identified causes of pain and rated their confidence in interpretation (1–5 scale; least to greatest confidence).

Results

In 30% of patients, the questionnaire provided a more specific location for pain. Among these, the pain was localized to a specific quadrant in 40%. With having access to the questionnaire, both readers identified additional causes for pain not identified in session 1 (Reader 1, 8.6% [7/81]; Reader 2 5.3% [4/75]). Additional identified causes of pain included diverticulitis, cystitis, peritoneal implants, epiploic appendagitis, osseous metastatic disease, umbilical hernia, gastritis, and SMA syndrome. Confidence in interpretation was significantly greater using the questionnaire for both readers (Reader 1: 4.8 ± 0.6 vs. 4.0 ± 0.5; Reader 2: 4.9 ± 0.3 vs. 4.7 ± 0.5, p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Patient questionnaires provide additional relevant clinical history, increased diagnostic yield, and improve radiologists’ confidence. Radiology practices are encouraged to implement questionnaires and make these readily available to radiologists at the time of interpretation.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Schreiber MH (1963) The clinical history as a factor in roentgenogram interpretation. Jama 185:399–401

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Song KS, Song HH, Park SH, et al. (1992) Impact of clinical history on film interpretation. Yonsei Med J 33(2):168–172. doi:10.3349/ymj.1992.33.2.168

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Mullins ME, Lev MH, Schellingerhout D, Koroshetz WJ, Gonzalez RG (2002) Influence of availability of clinical history on detection of early stroke using unenhanced CT and diffusion-weighted MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 179(1):223–228. doi:10.2214/ajr.179.1.1790223

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Leslie A, Jones AJ, Goddard PR (2000) The influence of clinical information on the reporting of CT by radiologists. Br J Radiol 73(874):1052–1055. doi:10.1259/bjr.73.874.11271897

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Cohen MD (2007) Accuracy of information on imaging requisitions: does it matter? J Am Coll Radiol 4(9):617–621. doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2007.02.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Gunderman RB, Phillips MD, Cohen MD (2001) Improving clinical histories on radiology requisitions. Acad Radiol 8(4):299–303. doi:10.1016/S1076-6332(03)80498-1

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Schneider E, Franz W, Spitznagel R, Bascom DA, Obuchowski NA (2011) Effect of computerized physician order entry on radiologic examination order indication quality. Arch Intern Med 171(11):1036–1038. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2011.234

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. CMS. ICD-9-CM coding for diagnostic tests. https://www.cms. gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Guidance/Transmittals/downloads/AB01144.pdf. Accessed 5 Jan 2017

  9. Hawkins CM, Anton CG, Bankes WM, et al. (2014) Improving the availability of clinical history accompanying radiographic examinations in a large pediatric radiology department. AJR Am J Roentgenol 202(4):790–796. doi:10.2214/AJR.13.11273

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Waite S, Scott J, Gale B, et al. (2016) Interpretive error in radiology. Am J Roentgenol 208(4):1–11

    Google Scholar 

  11. Doubilet P, Herman PG (1981) Interpretation of radiographs: effect of clinical history. Am J Roentgenol 137(5):1055–1058

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Berbaum KS, El-Khoury G, Franken E Jr, et al. (1988) Impact of clinical history on fracture detection with radiography. Radiology 168(2):507–511

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Good B, Cooperstein L, DeMarino G, et al. (1990) Does knowledge of the clinical history affect the accuracy of chest radiograph interpretation? AJR Am J Roentgenol 154(4):709–712

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Babcook CJ, Norman GR, Coblentz CL (1993) Effect of clinical history on the interpretation of chest radiographs in childhood bronchiolitis. Investig Radiol 28(3):214–217

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Eldevik O, Dugstad G, Orrison W, Haughton V (1982) The effect of clinical bias on the interpretation of myelography and spinal computed tomography. Radiology 145(1):85–89

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Loy CT, Irwig L (2004) Accuracy of diagnostic tests read with and without clinical information: a systematic review. Jama 292(13):1602–1609

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Moreno CC, Fleming M, McKinnie L, Duszak R Jr (2016) Expanded payer coverage for ultrasound evaluation of deep vein thrombosis with sonographer-obtained clinical history. J Am Coll Radiol 13(1):59–63. doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2015.07.031

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. ACR–SPR Practice parameter for the performance of computed tomography (CT) of the abdomen and computed tomography (CT) of the pelvis. https://www.acr.org/~/media/ACR/Documents/PGTS/guidelines/CT_Abdomen_Pelvis.pdf. Accessed 5 Jan 2017.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ankur M. Doshi.

Ethics declarations

Funding

This study had no funding.

Conflict of interest

All authors have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. No animals were involved.

Informed consent

Waiver of written informed consent was received from the IRB.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (TIFF 205 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Doshi, A.M., Huang, C., Ginocchio, L. et al. Impact of patient questionnaires on completeness of clinical information and identification of causes of pain during outpatient abdominopelvic CT interpretation. Abdom Radiol 42, 2946–2950 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-017-1202-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-017-1202-8

Keywords

Navigation