Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Musculoskeletal Radiology Reports: Overlooked or Valuable?

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Digital Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. 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, 2016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 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, 2017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 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, 2011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bosmans JML, Schrans D, Avonts D, De Maeseneer JM: Communication between general practitioners and radiologists: Opinions, experience, promises, pitfalls. JBR-BTR 97:325–330, 2014

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. O’Connor M: Musculoskeletal imaging: What information is important to the orthopedic oncologist? Semin. Musculoskelet. Radiol. 11:273–278, 2007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 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, 2018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Galinato A, Alvin MD, Yousem DM: Lost to follow-up: Analysis of never-viewed radiology examinations. J. Am. Coll. Radiol. 16:478–481, 2019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 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, 2015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. MRI Survey 20004: Final Report. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Dec 23, 2004.

  10. 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, 2002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Mills AM, Raja AS, Marin JR: Optimizing diagnostic imaging in the emergency department. Acad. Emerg. Med. 22:625–631, 2015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Accuracy of radiographic readings in the emergency department. Am. J. Emerg. Med.2011, 29, 18–25.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sadaf Sahraian.

Ethics declarations

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.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

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

IRB Approval #00102719 was obtained for this study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sahraian, S., Alvin, M.D., Haj-Mirzaian, A. et al. Musculoskeletal Radiology Reports: Overlooked or Valuable?. J Digit Imaging 33, 348–354 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-019-00286-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-019-00286-0

Keywords

Navigation