Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Multimedia-Enhanced Structured Reporting

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Structured Reporting in Radiology

Part of the book series: Imaging Informatics for Healthcare Professionals ((IIHP))

  • 923 Accesses

Abstract

The need for radiology reporting to transition from unstructured narratives to more standardized formats has existed for over a century but has been slow to change. The emergence of electronic forms of communication utilizing multimedia elements in interactive environments provides the means for radiology reports to become more versatile. Multimediaenhanced structured (MESR) reporting presents structured data elements in formats that meet the needs of clinicians and patients, connect disparate sources of information from within an electronic health record, and create opportunities to foster new discoveries. Although MESR is applicable to many image-based medical specialties, adoption has been slow due to a number of technical, human, and economic factors. The growing use of electronic communication in the consumer sector will inspire innovators building MESR solutions, but the transition from fee-for-service to value-based healthcare is where MESR can play a pivotal role that should drive its adoption.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Folio LR, Machado LB, Dwyer AJ. Multimedia-enhanced radiology reports: concept, components, and challenges. Radiographics. 2018;38:462–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Moreno R, Mayer RE. Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: the role of modality and contiguity. J Educ Psychol. 1999;91:358–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Mayer RE. Applying the science of learning to medical education. Med Educ. 2010;44:543–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Yue C, et al. Applying the cognitive theory of multimedia learning: an analysis of medical animations. Med Educ. 2013;47:375–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Roth CJ, Clunie DA, Vining DJ, et al. Multispecialty enterprise imaging workgroup consensus on interactive multimedia reporting current state and road to the future: HIMSS-SIIM collaborative white paper. J Digit Imaging. 2021;34:495–522.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ringeval M, et al. Fitbit-based interventions for healthy lifestyle outcomes: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22:e23954.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Eberhardt SC, Heilbrun ME. Radiology report value equation. Radiographics. 2018;38:1888–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Finny JM, Watson EJ. A report of cases illustrating the aid of the roentgen rays in the diagnosis of intrathoracic tumours. Br Med J. 1902;1:633–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kaska SC, Weinstein JN. Ernest Amory Codman, 1869-1940: a pioneer of evidence-based medicine: the end result idea. Spine. 1998;23:629–33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Markel SF, Hirsch SD. Synoptic surgical pathology reporting. Hum Pathol. 1991;22:807–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hickey PM. Standardization of roentgen-ray reports. AJR. 1922;9:422–5.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Nelson TH. Complex information processing: a file structure for the complex, the changing and the indeterminate. ACM ‘65: Proceedings of the 1965 20th national conference. 1965. p. 84–100. https://doi.org/10.1145/800197.806036.

  13. Chen CC, Hoffer PB, Swett HA. Hypermedia in radiology: computer-assisted education. J Digit Imaging. 1989;2:48–55.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Jaffe CC, Lynch PJ, Smeulders AW. Hypermedia techniques for diagnostic imaging instruction: videodisk echocardiography encyclopedia. Radiology. 1989;171:475–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Korein J, Kricheff II, Chase NE, Randt CT. Computer processing of neuroradiological reports. An introduction to the application of the variable-field-length format and MEDTRAN. Radiology. 1965;84:197–203.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Schramm C, Goldberg M, Pagurek B. Multimedia radiological reports: creation and playback. J Digit Imaging. 1989;2:106–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Goldberg M, et al. A multimedia medical communication link between a radiology department and an emergency department. J Digit Imaging. 1989;2:92–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Bellon E, et al. Multimedia e-mail systems for computer-assisted radiological communication. Med Inf. 1994;19:139–48.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Vining DJ, et al. REX: a rapid radiology reporting system. Radiology. 2000;217(Suppl P):698.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Brower RW, et al. The role of the personal computer in the cardiac catheterization laboratory: an integrated approach to information management. Comput Methods Prog Biomed. 1987;24:87–96.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Cheng DY, et al. MCAT—a multimedia cardiac angiogram tool. Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care. 1995:673–7.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Balogh N, et al. Cardiac digital image loops and multimedia reports over the internet using DICOM. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2002;90:148–51.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Olympus Advanced Reporting. https://medical.olympusamerica.com/technology/software-system-integration/electronic-medical-records/features-benefits/advanced-reporting. Accessed 3 Aug 2021.

  24. EndoWorks® 7 Endoscopy Information Management Solution. https://medical.olympusamerica.com/technology/software-system-integration/endoscopy-support-software. Accessed 3 Aug 2021.

  25. Lin OS, et al. Validation of colonoscopic findings from a structured endoscopic documentation database against manually collected medical records data. Surg Endosc. 2016;30:1607–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Douglas PS, et al. ACCF/ACR/AHA/ASE/ASNC/HRS/NASCI/RSNA/SAIP/SCAI/SCCT/SCMR 2008 Health Policy Statement on Structured Reporting in Cardiovascular Imaging. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;53:76–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Sanborn TA, et al. ACC/AHA/SCAI 2014 health policy statement on structured reporting for the cardiac catheterization laboratory: a report of the American College of Cardiology Clinical Quality Committee. Circulation. 2014;129:2578–609.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Mori Y, Igarashi T, Haraguchi R, Nakazawa K. A pen-based interface for generating graphical reports of findings in cardiac catheterization. Methods Inf Med. 2007;46:694–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Homorodean C, Olinic M, Olinic D. Development of a methodology for structured reporting of information in echocardiography. Med Ultrason. 2012;14:29–33.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Weintraub WS. Role of big data in cardiovascular research. J Am Heart Assoc. 2019;8:e012791.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. GE Healthcare showcases new cardiovascular IT innovations. https://www.dicardiology.com/videos/video-ge-healthcare-showcases-new-cardiovascular-it-innovations. Accessed 3 Aug 2021.

  32. Connected Cardiology begins here. Connect your cardiovascular enterprise with a single solution. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ms_QlXqk888. Accessed 3 Aug 2021.

  33. Structured flexibility—with heart. https://www.siemens-healthineers.com/en-us/medical-imaging-it/cardiovascular-it-solutions/cardiovascular-imaging-information-solution. Accessed 3 Aug 2021.

  34. Ganz JC. The development of dose planning. Prog Brain Res. 2014;215:111–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Guo F. 3-D treatment planning system-Leksell gamma knife treatment planning system. Med Dosim. 2018;43:177–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Leksell GammaPlan. Integrated treatment planning for gamma knife. https://www.elekta.com/radiosurgery/leksell-gammaplan. Accessed 3 Aug 2021.

  37. Leslie KO, Rosai J. Standardization of the surgical pathology report: formats, templates, and synoptic reports. Semin Diagn Pathol. 1994;11:253–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Cancer protocol templates. https://www.cap.org/protocols-and-guidelines/cancer-reporting-tools/cancer-protocol-templates. Accessed 3 Aug 2021.

  39. Nakhleh RE, et al. The future of College of American Pathologists cancer protocols: maintaining a commitment to patient safety while improving the user experience. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2017;141:1153–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Food and Drug Administration, Office of the Commissioner: FDA allows marketing of first whole slide imaging system for digital pathology, 2017. http://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-allows-marketing-first-whole-slide-imaging-system-digital-pathology. Accessed 3 Aug 2021.

  41. Park S, Pantanowitz L. Digital imaging in pathology. Clin Lab Med. 2012;32:557–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Hanna MG, et al. Whole slide imaging equivalency and efficiency study: experience at a large academic center. Mod Pathol. 2019;32:916–28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Yagi Y, et al. An ultra-high speed whole slide image viewing system. Anal Cell Pathol. 2012;35:65–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. IHE Pathology and Laboratory Medicine (PaLM). https://wiki.ihe.net/index.php/Pathology_and_Laboratory_Medicine_(PaLM). Accessed 3 Aug 2021.

  45. DICOM WG-26: Pathology. https://www.dicomstandard.org/activity/wgs/wg-26. Accessed 3 Aug 2021.

  46. Quigley EA, et al. Technology and technique standards for camera-acquired digital dermatologic images—a systematic review. JAMA Dermatol. 2015;151:883–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Marghoob AA. Standards in dermatologic imaging. JAMA Dermatol. 2015;151:819–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Kenneweg KA, et al. Developing an international standard for the classification of surface anatomic location for use in clinical practice and epidemiologic research. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019;80:1564–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. DICOM WG-19: Dermatology. https://www.dicomstandard.org/activity/wgs/wg-19. Accessed 3 Aug 2021.

  50. Caffery LJ, et al. Transforming dermatologic imaging for the digital era: metadata and standards. J Digit Imaging. 2018;31:568–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Kruskal JB, et al. Big data and machine learning-strategies for driving this bus: a summary of the 2016 Intersociety Summer Conference. J Am Coll Radiol. 2017;14:811–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Iyer VR, et al. Added value of selected images embedded into radiology reports to referring clinicians. J Am Coll Radiol. 2010;7:205–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Nayak L, et al. A picture is worth a thousand words: needs assessment for multimedia radiology reports in a large tertiary care medical center. Acad Radiol. 2013;20:1577–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Sadigh G, et al. Traditional text-only versus multimedia-enhanced radiology reporting: referring physicians’ perceptions of value. J Am Coll Radiol. 2015;12:519–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Vining DJ, et al. A vision for radiology structured reporting. 97th Radiological Society of North America Proceedings (#LL-INS-WE7B), 11/2011. e-Pub.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Vining DJ, et al. Development of an ontological structure to relate signs/symptoms, pathology, radiological procedures, and treatments using anatomical locations as a common denominator. Poster presented at the meeting of the European Congress of Radiology, Vienna, Austria; 2019. https://doi.org/10.26044/ecr2019/C-2971.

  57. Rubin DL, Kahn CE. Common data elements in radiology. Radiology. 2017;283:837–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Vining DJ, et al. Development of a multidisciplinary ontology for use in calculating medical outcomes. Poster presented at the meeting of the European Congress of Radiology, Vienna, Austria; 2020. https://doi.org/10.26044/ecr2020/C-11510

  59. Vining DJ, et al. Use of common data elements and diagnostic templates in a clinical decision support system to produce higher-quality radiology reports. Poster presented at the meeting of the European Congress of Radiology, Vienna, Austria; 2020. https://doi.org/10.26044/ecr2020/C-14100

  60. Machado LB, et al. Radiology reports with hyperlinks improve target lesion selection and measurement concordance in cancer trials. Am J Roentgenol. 2017;208:31–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Beesley SD, Patrie JT, Gaskin CM. Radiologist adoption of interactive multimedia reporting technology. J Am Coll Radiol. 2019;16:465–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Philips completes acquisition of Carestream Health’s Healthcare Information Systems business in majority of relevant countries. https://www.philips.com/a-w/about/news/archive/standard/news/press/2019/20190801-philips-completes-acquisition-of-carestream-healths-healthcare-information-systems-business-in-majority-of-relevant-countries.html. Accessed 3 Aug 2021.

  63. DICOM Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine. https://www.dicomstandard.org. Accessed 3 Aug 2021.

  64. IHE International—Integrating the Healthcare Enterprise. https://www.ihe.net. Accessed 3 Aug 2021.

  65. HL7 International. https://www.hl7.org. Accessed 3 Aug 2021.

  66. Noumeir R. Benefits of the DICOM structured report. J Digit Imaging. 2006;19:295–306.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. HL7 International. CDA Release 2. https://www.hl7.org/implement/standards/product_brief.cfm?product_id=7. Accessed 3 Aug 2021.

  68. IHE Domains. https://www.ihe.net/ihe_domains. Accessed 3 Aug 2021.

  69. IHE Radiology Technical Framework Supplement—Management of Radiology Report Templates (MRRT). https://www.ihe.net/uploadedFiles/Documents/Radiology/IHE_RAD_Suppl_MRRT.pdf. Accessed 3 Aug 2021.

  70. Harrington DP. Imaging and informatics at the National Cancer Institute, part 2. J Am Coll Radiol. 2006;3:169–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Channin DS, et al. The caBIG annotation and image markup project. J Digit Imaging. 2010;23:217–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Rubin DL, et al. ePAD: an image annotation and analysis platform for quantitative imaging. Tomography. 2019;5:170–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Khvastova M, et al. Towards Interoperability in Clinical Research—enabling FHIR on the open-source research platform XNAT. J Med Syst. 2020;44:137.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Vreeland A, et al. Considerations for exchanging and sharing medical images for improved collaboration and patient care: HIMSS-SIIM collaborative white paper. J Digit Imaging. 2016;29:547–58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Mandel JC, et al. SMART on FHIR: a standards-based, interoperable apps platform for electronic health records. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2016;23:899–908.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. CPT® (Current Procedural Terminology). https://www.ama-assn.org/amaone/cpt-current-procedural-terminology. Accessed 3 Aug 2021.

  77. International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM). https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/icd/icd10cm.htm. Accessed 3 Aug 2021.

  78. RxNorm. https://www.nlm.nih.gov/research/umls/rxnorm/index.html. Accessed 3 Aug 2021.

  79. LOINC from Regenstrief. https://loinc.org. Accessed 3 Aug 2021.

  80. SNOMED International. http://www.snomed.org. Accessed 3 Aug 2021.

  81. RadLex radiology lexicon. https://www.rsna.org/en/practice-tools/data-tools-and-standards/radlex-radiology-lexicon. Accessed 3 Aug 2021.

  82. Ransomware hits dozens of hospitals in an unprecedented wave. https://www.wired.com/story/ransomware-hospitals-ryuk-trickbot. Accessed 3 Aug 2021.

  83. Johnson AJ, et al. Cohort study of structured reporting compared with conventional dictation. Radiology. 2009;253:74–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. White WL, Stavola JM. The dark side of photomicrographs in pathology reports: liability and practical concerns hidden from view. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2006;54:353–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Filice RW. Radiology-pathology correlation to facilitate peer learning: an overview including recent artificial intelligence methods. J Am Coll Radiol. 2019;16(9 Pt B):1279–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Here’s what innovators really need from EHR makers to move healthcare forward. https://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/heres-what-innovators-really-need-ehr-makers-move-healthcare-forward. Accessed 3 Aug 2021.

  87. Sundvall E, et al. Graphical overview and navigation of electronic health records in a prototyping environment using Google earth and openEHR archetypes. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2007;129:1043–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. App store fees, percentages, and payouts: what developers need to know. https://www.techrepublic.com/blog/software-engineer/app-store-fees-percentages-and-payouts-what-developers-need-to-know/#:~:text=For%20Android%20apps%2C%20developer%20fees,much%20less%20of%20an%20issue. Accessed 3 Aug 2021.

  89. Epic App Orchard lowers participation fee for health IT developers. https://ehrintelligence.com/news/epic-app-orchard-lowers-participation-fee-for-health-it-developers. Accessed 3 Aug 2021.

  90. Anumula N, Sanelli PC. Meaningful use. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2012;33:1455–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. The Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology. https://www.healthit.gov. Accessed 3 Aug 2021.

  92. Lye CT, et al. The 21st Century Cures Act and electronic health records one year later: will patients see the benefits? J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2018;25:1218–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. CMS Interoperability and Patient Access final rule. https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Guidance/Interoperability/index. Accessed 3 Aug 2021.

  94. Moser JW, et al. Pay for performance in radiology: ACR white paper. J Am Coll Radiol. 2006;3:650–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Heller RE 3rd. An analysis of quality measures in diagnostic radiology with suggestions for future advancement. J Am Coll Radiol. 2016;13:1182–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. CMS.gov Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. CMS Measures Inventory. https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Quality-Initiatives-Patient-Assessment-Instruments/QualityMeasures/CMS-Measures-Inventory. Accessed 3 Aug 2021.

Download references

Conflicts of Interest

VisionSR, Majority owner and CEO; Bracco Diagnostics, Royalties.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Diagnostic Radiology, Department of Abdominal Imaging, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA

    David J. Vining

Authors
  1. David J. Vining
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David J. Vining .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Biobank, National Brain Mapping Laboratory, Tehran, Iran

    Mansoor Fatehi

  2. Department of Radiology, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany

    Daniel Pinto dos Santos

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 European Society of Medical Imaging Informatics (EuSoMII)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Vining, D.J. (2022). Multimedia-Enhanced Structured Reporting. In: Fatehi, M., Pinto dos Santos, D. (eds) Structured Reporting in Radiology. Imaging Informatics for Healthcare Professionals. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91349-6_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91349-6_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-91348-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-91349-6

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation