The electronic medical record (EMR) can reveal preferences of clinicians regarding imaging services. We sought to evaluate viewing habits for reports and images of musculoskeletal (MSK) studies by ordering clinicians. We hypothesized that MSK reports are important to clinical management, especially for advanced imaging modalities. We tracked the image and report access of all MSK studies ordered in September 2016 over 8 months using logs of the EMR (Epic Systems, Verona, WI), and by an independent analysis of the institutional PACS (Picture Archiving and Communication Systems) (Carestream Health, Rochester, NY). The time stamps were extracted for when images and reports were viewed. We categorized MSK studies by modality and provider department. We also compared the rates of viewing reports and images among different modalities and departments using the chi-square test. Of the 8143 viewed MSK studies, 7842 (96.3%) reports (with/without images) and 3916 (48.1%) imaging data (with/without reports) were viewed. Viewing reports alone occurred in 4227 (51.9%) studies. CT and MRI reports alone views occurred more often in comparison to radiographs ([482/706; 68.3%] for CT and [981/1713; 57.3%] for MRI vs. [2764/5724; 48.3%] for radiography, p < 0.001). Orthopedists ordered the highest number of MSK studies and viewed reports 99.2% (3216/3242) of the time, including a 54.6% (1770/3242) rate of viewing reports alone and a 44.6% (1446/3242) rate of viewing both reports and images. They viewed images without reports in 0.8% (27/3242) of cases. MSK reports were viewed significantly more frequently than the images across all modalities and all relevant specialties.
Musculoskeletal Value Viewing report Viewing imaging PACS EMR
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
This study was performed with institutional review board approval and was HIPAA compliant.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Buabbas AJ, Al-Shamali DA, Sharma P, Haidar S, Al-Shawaf H: Users’ perspectives on a picture archiving and communication system (PACS): An in-depth study in a teaching hospital in Kuwait. JMIR Med. Informatics 4:e21, 2016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dako F, Schreyer K, Burshteyn M, Cohen G, Belden C: Expanding radiology’s role in a value-based health economy. J. Am. Coll. Radiol. 14:622–624, 2017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bosmans JML, Weyler JJ, De Schepper AM, Parizel PM: The radiology report as seen by radiologists and referring clinicians: Results of the COVER and ROVER surveys. Radiology 259:184–195, 2011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bosmans JML, Schrans D, Avonts D, De Maeseneer JM: Communication between general practitioners and radiologists: Opinions, experience, promises, pitfalls. JBR-BTR 97:325–330, 2014PubMedGoogle Scholar
O’Connor M: Musculoskeletal imaging: What information is important to the orthopedic oncologist? Semin. Musculoskelet. Radiol. 11:273–278, 2007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alvin MD, Shahriari M, Honig E, Liu L, Yousem DM: Clinical access and utilization of reports and images in neuroradiology. J. Am. Coll. Radiol. 15:1723–1731, 2018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galinato A, Alvin MD, Yousem DM: Lost to follow-up: Analysis of never-viewed radiology examinations. J. Am. Coll. Radiol. 16:478–481, 2019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson PT, Mahesh M, Fishman EK: Image wisely and choosing wisely: Importance of adult body CT protocol design for patient safety, exam quality, and diagnostic efficacy. J. Am. Coll. Radiol. 12:1185–1190, 2015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MRI Survey 20004: Final Report. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Dec 23, 2004.Google Scholar
Oguz KK, Yousem DM, Deluca T, Herskovits EH, Beauchamp NJ: Effect of emergency department CT on neuroimaging case volume and positive scan rates. Acad. Radiol. 9:1018–1024, 2002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mills AM, Raja AS, Marin JR: Optimizing diagnostic imaging in the emergency department. Acad. Emerg. Med. 22:625–631, 2015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Accuracy of radiographic readings in the emergency department. Am. J. Emerg. Med.2011, 29, 18–25.Google Scholar