Abstract
The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare textual error rates and subtypes in radiology reports before and after implementation of department-wide structured reports. Randomly selected radiology reports that were generated following the implementation of department-wide structured reports were evaluated for textual errors by two radiologists. For each report, the text was compared to the corresponding audio file. Errors in each report were tabulated and classified. Error rates were compared to results from a prior study performed prior to implementation of structured reports. Calculated error rates included the average number of errors per report, average number of nongrammatical errors per report, the percentage of reports with an error, and the percentage of reports with a nongrammatical error. Identical versions of voice-recognition software were used for both studies. A total of 644 radiology reports were randomly evaluated as part of this study. There was a statistically significant reduction in the percentage of reports with nongrammatical errors (33 to 26 %; p = 0.024). The likelihood of at least one missense omission error (omission errors that changed the meaning of a phrase or sentence) occurring in a report was significantly reduced from 3.5 to 1.2 % (p = 0.0175). A statistically significant reduction in the likelihood of at least one comission error (retained statements from a standardized report that contradict the dictated findings or impression) occurring in a report was also observed (3.9 to 0.8 %; p = 0.0007). Carefully constructed structured reports can help to reduce certain error types in radiology reports.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Quint LE, Quint DJ, Myles JD: Frequency and spectrum of errors in final radiology report generated with automatic speech recognition technology. J Am Coll Radiol 5:1196–1199, 2008
McGurk S, Brauer K, Macfarlane TV, Duncan KA: The effect of voice recognition software on comparative error rates in radiology reports. Br J Radiol 81:767–770, 2008
Kanal KM, Hangiandreou NJ, Sykes AMG, Eklund HE, Araoz PA, Leon JA, Erickson BJ: Evaluation of the accuracy of continuous speech recognition software system in radiology. J Digit Imaging 13:211–212, 2000
Hawkins CM, Hall S, Hardin J, Salisbury S, Towbin AJ: Pre-populated radiology report templates: a prospective analysis of error rate and dictation time. J Digit Imaging 25(4):504–511, 2012
Kahn CE, Heilbrun ME, Applegate KE: From guidelines to practice: how reporting templates promote the use of radiology practice guidelines. J Am Coll Radiol 10:268–273, 2013
Schwartz LH, Panicek DM, Berk AR, Li Y, Hricak H: Improving communication of diagnostic radiology findings through structured reporting. Radiology 260(1):174–181, 2011
Reiner BI: The challenges, opportunities, and imperative of structured reporting in medical imaging. J Digit Imaging 22(6):562–568, 2009
Larson DB, Towbin AJ, Pryor RM, Donnelly LF: Improving consistency in radiology reporting through the use of department-wide standardized structured reporting. Radiology 267(1):240–250, 2013
Johnson AJ, Chen MY, Zapadka ME, Lyders EM, Littenberg B: Radiology report clarity: a cohort study of structured reporting compared with conventional dictation. J Am Coll Radiol 7:501–506, 2010
Reiner BI, Knight N, Siegel EL: Radiology reporting, past, present, and future: the radiologist’s perspective. J Am Coll Radiol 4:313–319, 2007
Disclosures
None.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hawkins, C.M., Hall, S., Zhang, B. et al. Creation and Implementation of Department-Wide Structured Reports: An Analysis of the Impact on Error Rate in Radiology Reports. J Digit Imaging 27, 581–587 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-014-9699-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-014-9699-7