Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Survey of radiologists and emergency department providers after implementation of a global radiology report categorization system

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Emergency Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Breakdown in communication of important imaging results threatens patient safety and risks malpractice claims. To facilitate closed-loop communication, our institution developed a unique radiology report categorization (RADCAT) system employing automated alert notification systems. This study aimed to understand users’ initial experiences with the RADCAT system and obtain feedback.

Methods

Web-based surveys were distributed to radiologists and emergency department (ED) providers at our hospital system within 1 year of institution-wide RADCAT implementation. Survey designs differed based on clinical setting. Most prompts utilized declarative statements with 5-point agreement Likert scales. Closed-response data was analyzed with descriptive statistics.

Results

Response rates among radiologists and ED providers were 59.4% (63/106) and 38.4% (69/211), respectively. 78.0% (46/59) of radiologists and 60.9% (42/69) of ED providers agreed that RADCAT improves patient care. Of radiologists, 84.1% (53/63) agreed that RADCAT design is intuitive, and 57.6% (34/59) agreed that RADCAT improves efficiency. Of ED providers, 69.6% (48/69) agreed that RADCAT appropriately differentiates urgent and non-urgent findings, and 65.2% (45/69) agreed that auto-population of discharge documents with imaging results containing follow-up recommendations protects them from liability. Only 35.6% (21/59) of radiologists and 21.7% (15/69) of ED providers agreed that RADCAT implementation decreased reading room visits by ordering providers. Open-response feedback showed that some ED providers find RADCAT too complex while some radiologists desire improved transparency regarding imaging study communication status.

Conclusion

Since its implementation, RADCAT has been well received among radiologists and ED providers with agreement that it improves patient care and effectively distinguishes and communicates important imaging findings.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The authors declare that they had full access to all of the data in this study and the authors take complete responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

References

  1. National Patient Safety Goals. https://www.jointcommission.org/standards/national-patient-safety-goals/. Accessed April 9, 2020

  2. Murphy DR, Hardeep S, Berlin L (2014) Communication breakdowns and diagnostic errors: a radiology perspective. Diagnsis (Berl) 1(4):253–261. https://doi.org/10.1515/dx-2014-0035.Communication

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. SchiffG, AL P,A H-K, et al. Primary care closed claims experience of Massachusetts malpractice insurers. JAMA Intern Med2013;173(22):2063–2068. doi:https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.11070

  4. Berlin L (2002) Communicating findings of radiologic examinations: whither goest the radiologist’s duty? AJR Am J Roentgenol 178(4):809–815

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Schwartz LH, Panicek DM, Berk AR, Li Y, Hricak H (2011) Improving communication of diagnostic radiology findings through structured reporting. Radiology. 260(1):174–181. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.11101913/-/DC1

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Travis A, Sevenster M, Ganesh R, Peters J, PJ C. (2014) Preferences for structured reporting of measurement data: an institutional survey of medical oncologists, oncology registrars, and radiologists. Acad Radiol 21(6):785–796. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2014.02.008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Khorasani R (2009) Optimizing communication of critical test results. J Am Coll Radiol 6(10):721–723. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2009.07.011

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. LarsonDB, TowbinAJ, PryorRM, DonnellyLF. Improving consistency in radiology reporting through the use of department-wide. Radiology. 2013;267(1)

  9. LanglotzC.ACR BI-RADS for breast imaging communication: a roadmap for the rest of radiology. J Am Coll Radiol2009;6(12):861–863. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2009.09.015

  10. Burnside ES, Sickles EA, Bassett LW et al (2011) The ACR BI-RADS® experience: learning from history. J Am Coll Radiol 6(12):851–860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2009.07.023.The

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Hanna D, Griswold P, Leape L, Bates D (2005) Communicating critical test results: safe practice recommendations. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 31(2):68–80

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Larson P, Berland L, Griffith B, Kahn CJ, Liebscher L (2014) Actionable findings and the role of IT support: report of the ACR Actionable Reporting Work Group. J Am Coll Radiol 11(6):552–558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2013.12.016

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Lacson R, O’Connor SD, Andriole KP, Prevedello LM, Khorasani R (2015) Automated critical test result notification system: architecture, design, and assessment of provider satisfaction. AJR Am J Roentgenol 203(5):W491–W496. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.14.13063.Automated

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Lacson R, Prevedello LM, Andriole KP et al (2015) Four-year impact of an alert notification system on closed-loop communication of critical test results. AJR Am J Roentgenol 203(5):933–938. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.14.13064.Four-Year

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Swenson DW, Baird GL, Portelli DC, Mainiero MB, Movson JS (2017) Pilot study of a new comprehensive radiology report categorization (RADCAT) system in the emergency department. Emerg Radiol 25(2):139–145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10140-017-1565-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Dibble EH, Swenson DW, Cobb C, Paul TJ, Karn AE, Portelli DC, Movson JS (2017) The RADCAT-3 system for closing the loop on important non-urgent radiology findings: a multidisciplinary system-wide approach. Emerg Radiol 24(2):119–125. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10140-016-1452-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Klobuka AJ, Lee J, Buranosky R, Heller M (2019) When the reading room meets the team room: resident perspectives from radiology and internal medicine on the effect of personal communication after implementing a resident-led radiology rounds. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol 48(4):312–322. https://doi.org/10.1067/j.cpradiol.2018.02.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Williams LH, Drew T (2017) Distraction in diagnostic radiology: how is search through volumetric medical images affected by interruptions ? Cogn Res Princ Implic 2(1):12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-017-0050-y

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Yu J-PJ, Kansagra AP, Mongan J (2014) The radiologist’s workflow environment: evaluation of disruptors and potential implications. J Am Coll Radiol 11(6):589–593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2013.12.026

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Balint BJ, Steenburg SD, Lin H, Shen C, Steele JL, Gunderman RB (2014) Do telephone call interruptions have an impact on radiology resident diagnostic accuracy? Acad Radiol 21(12):P1623–P1628. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2014.08.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Shih T-H, Fan X (2009) Comparing response rates in e-mail and paper surveys: a meta-analysis. Field methods 20(3):249–271. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X08317085

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Code availability

No custom code used. Software applications include REDCap (Vanderbilt, Nashville, Tennessee) and Microsoft Excel 2016 software (Microsoft Corporation, Redmont, WA, USA).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Rhode Island Hospital, The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, 3rd floor Main Building, 593 Eddy Street, Providence, RI, 02903, USA

    Eric L. Tung, Elizabeth H. Dibble, Gaurav Jindal, Jonathan S. Movson & David W. Swenson

Authors
  1. Eric L. Tung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elizabeth H. Dibble
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gaurav Jindal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jonathan S. Movson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. David W. Swenson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors substantially contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection, and analysis were performed by Eric L Tung, David W Swenson, Jonathon S Movson, and Gaurav Jindal. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Eric Tung and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eric L. Tung.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tung, E.L., Dibble, E.H., Jindal, G. et al. Survey of radiologists and emergency department providers after implementation of a global radiology report categorization system. Emerg Radiol 28, 65–75 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10140-020-01824-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10140-020-01824-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation