Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Do clinicians read our reports? Integrating the radiology information system with the electronic patient record: experiences from the first 2 years

  • Computer Applications
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study aimed to determine how clinicians adapted to and utilized new routines for accessing radiology reports after the integration of an electronic patient record (EPR) with a radiology information system (RIS). Activity-related data describing the availability and receipt of radiology reports were collected from the EPR and the RIS over a period of 2 years. Twelve percent of the final radiology reports had not been opened 4 weeks after they had been entered into the EPR. For opened reports, the median time after a report was available in the EPR until it was first opened by a clinician was less than 1 h for preliminary reports and less than 4 h for final radiology reports. The use of radiology reports was stable during the second observation year. Some reports were not opened for professional as well as technical reasons. The integrated information systems offered a potential for improving routines related to the transmission of radiology reports. Clinicians did not fully take advantage of this potential in the 2 years after its introduction.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Gunderman RB (2005) The medical community’s changing vision of the patient: the importance of radiology. Radiology 234:339–342

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Smith PC, Araya-Guerra R, Bublitz C et al (2005) Missing clinical information during primary care visits. JAMA 293:565–571

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Levin DC (1994) Merrill C. Sosman Lecture. The practice of radiology by nonradiologists: cost, quality, and utilization issues. AJR Am J Roentgenol 162:513–518

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Pilling JR (2003) Picture archiving and communication systems: the users’ view. Br J Radiol 76:519–524

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Espinosa JA, Nolan TW (2000) Reducing errors made by emergency physicians in interpreting radiographs: longitudinal study. BMJ 320:737–740

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Berlin L (1997) Radiology reports. AJR Am J Roentgenol 169:943–946

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Foord K (1999) PACS: the second time around. Eur J Radiol 32:96–100

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Kim SA, Park WS, Chun TJ et al (2002) Association of the implementation of PACS with hospital revenue. J Digit Imaging 15:247–253

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Nitrosi A, Borasi G, Nicoli F et al (2007) A filmless radiology department in a full digital regional hospital: quantitative evaluation of the increased quality and efficiency. J Digit Imaging 20(2):140–148, Epub 2007 Feb 23

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Siegel EL, Reiner BI (2003) Filmless radiology at the Baltimore VA Medical Center: a 9 year retrospective. Comput Med Imaging Graph 27:101–109

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Bryan S, Weatherburn G, Buxton M et al (1999) Evaluation of a hospital picture archiving and communication system. J Health Serv Res Policy 4:204–209

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Mariani C, Tronchi A, Oncini L et al (2006) Analysis of the X-ray work flow in two diagnostic imaging departments with and without a RIS/PACS system. J Digit Imaging 19(Suppl 1):18–28

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Lindhardt FE (1996) Clinical experiences with computed radiography. Eur J Radiol 22:175–85

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Reiner B, Siegel E, Protopapas Z et al (1999) Impact of filmless radiology on frequency of clinician consultations with radiologists. AJR Am J Roentgenol 173:1169–1172

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Reiner BI, Siegel EL, Flagle C et al (2000) Effect of filmless imaging on the utilization of radiologic services. Radiology 215:163–167

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Fitzgerald R (2001) Error in radiology. Clin Radiol 56:938–946

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Goddard P, Leslie A, Jones A et al (2001) Error in radiology. Br J Radiol 74:949–951

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Cohen MD (2008) Making preliminary radiographic reports available to referring clinicians: current status. Acad Radiol 15:127–131

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Holman BL, Aliabadi P, Silverman SG et al (1994) Medical impact of unedited preliminary radiology reports. Radiology 191:519–521

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Landsberger HA (1958) Hawthorne revisited. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York

  21. Dahl FA, Grotle M, Saltyte BJ et al (2008) Data splitting as a countermeasure against hypothesis fishing: with a case study of predictors for low back pain. Eur J Epidemiol 23:237–242

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

This work was funded by the Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority and the Directorate for Health and Social Affaires.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Helse Sør-Øst Health Services Research Centre, Akershus University Hospital, Sykehusveien 27, 1478, Lørenskog, Norway

    Petter Hurlen, Fredrik A. Dahl & Pål Gulbrandsen

  2. Centre for Diagnostic Imaging, Akershus University Hospital, Sykehusveien 27, 1478, Lørenskog, Norway

    Petter Hurlen & Arne Borthne

  3. Department of Community and Family Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, 318 Hanes House, DUMC, box 2914, Durham, NC, 27710, USA

    Truls Østbye

  4. Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School Singapore, 2 Jalan, Bukit Merah, 169547, Singapore

    Truls Østbye

  5. Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Forskningsveien 3 A, 0316, Oslo, Norway

    Pål Gulbrandsen

  6. Faculty Division Akershus University Hospital, University of Oslo, Sykehusveien 27, Lørenskog, 1478, Norway

    Pål Gulbrandsen

Authors
  1. Petter Hurlen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Truls Østbye
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Arne Borthne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Fredrik A. Dahl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Pål Gulbrandsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Petter Hurlen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hurlen, P., Østbye, T., Borthne, A. et al. Do clinicians read our reports? Integrating the radiology information system with the electronic patient record: experiences from the first 2 years. Eur Radiol 19, 31–36 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-008-1098-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-008-1098-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation