Skip to main content
Log in

Results of an Italian survey on teleradiology

  • COMPUTER APPLICATIONS
  • Published:
La radiologia medica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

The aim of this study is to present the results of the Italian survey on teleradiology (TR).

Methods

Two radiologists created an online electronic survey using the Survey Monkey web-based tool. The questionnaire was then improved by suggestions from a multidisciplinary group of experts. In its final form, the survey consisted of 19 multiple-choice questions. Space was left below each question for participants to add their personal comments. Members of Italian Society of Medical Radiology (SIRM) were given 2 weeks to perform the survey.

Results

A total of 1599 radiologists, corresponding to 17 % of all SIRM radiologists, participated into the online survey. As a result, 62 % of participants have a positive opinion on teleradiology, while 80 % including 18 % with a negative opinion believe that teleradiology will have a future. 55 % of responders (n = 874) use teleradiology in their clinical practice. The majority of users adopt intra-mural teleradiology for coverage of emergencies (47 %), of night and weekend shifts (37 %) or to even out distribution workload (33 %). Most responders still show concern on the use of teleradiology. In particular, they think that teleradiology is too impersonal (40 %), and that it is responsible for insufficient communication with the referring clinician (39 %).

Conclusions

The majority of Italian radiologists are favorable to teleradiology. However, they have concerns that teleradiology may further reduce communication with the referring clinician ad patient.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. European Society of Radiology (ESR) (2014) ESR white paper on teleradiology: an update from the teleradiology subgroup. Insights Imaging 5:1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ranschaert ER, Barneveld Binkhuysen FHB (2012) European teleradiology now and in the future: results of an online survey. Insights Imaging 4:93–102

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Deloitte and Ipsos Belgium (2011) eHealth Benchmarking III SMART 2009/0022 Final Report. 1–274. http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/eeurope/i2010/docs/benchmarking/ehealth_benchmarking_3_final_report.pdf. Accessed 23 Jan 2012

  4. Ross P, Sepper R, Pohjonen H (2010) Cross-border teleradiology—experience from two international teleradiology projects. Eur J Radiol 73:20–25

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Benjamin M, Aradi Y, Shreiber R (2010) From shared data to sharing workflow: merging PACS and teleradiology. Eur J Radiol 73:3–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. European Society of Radiology 2009 (2010) The future role of radiology in healthcare. Insights Imaging 1:2–11

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Dixon AK, FitzGerald R (2008) Outsourcing and teleradiology: potential benefits, risks and solutions from a UK/European perspective. J Am Coll Radiol 5:12–18

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Rapporti ISTISAN, Roma, October–December 2010

  9. Rylands-Monk F (2011) France acts on teleradiology to ensure ethics and quality. http://www.auntminnieeurope.com/index.aspx?sec=sup&sub=ris&pag=dis&ItemID=605119. Accessed 14 July 2013

  10. Survey Monkey web-based survey tool. https://www.surveymonkey.com. Accessed June 2014

  11. http://help.surveymonkey.com/articles/en_US/kb/How-to-analyze-results

  12. http://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/2015/11/09/15A08299/

  13. Rosenberg C, Langner S, Rosenberg B, Hosten N (2011) Medizinische und rechtliche Aspekte der Teleradiologie in Deutschland. Rofo 183:804–811

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Levin DC, Rao VM (2011) Outsourcing to teleradiology companies: bad for radiology, bad for radiologists. J Am Coll Radiol 8:104–108

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ross P (2011, September) Pros and cons of international teleradiology services. Presentation held at MIR annual scientific meeting, Nice

  16. Barneveld Binkhuysen FH, Ranschaert ER (2011) Teleradiology: evolution and concepts. Eur J Radiol 78:205–209

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Lienemann B, Hodler J, Luetolf M, Pfirrmann CWA (2005) Swiss teleradiology survey: present situation and future trends. Eur Radiol 15:2157–2162

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Silva E, Breslau J, Barr RM, Liebscher LA et al (2013) ACR white paper on teleradiology practice: a report from the task force on teleradiology practice. J Am Coll Radiol 10(8):575–585

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Investing in the clinical radiology workforce—the quality and efficiency case March 2012; Royal College of Radiologists

  20. Marlia: sentenza e percorso; http://www.radiologiamedica.org

  21. Ranschaert ER, Boland GW, Duerinckx AJ, Barneveld Binkhuysen FH (2015) Comparison of European (ESR) and American (ACR) white papers on teleradiology: patient primacy is paramount. J Am Coll Radiol. 12(2):174–182

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Directive 2011/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 on the application of patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare (2011). OJL 88:45–65

  23. The Royal College of Radiologists (2012) The regulation of teleradiology. A position statement by the Royal College of Radiologists. The Royal College of Radiologists, London

    Google Scholar 

  24. The Royal College of Radiologists (2012) Standards for the communication of critical, urgent and unexpected significant radiological findings, 2nd edn. The Royal College of Radiologists, London

    Google Scholar 

  25. The Royal College of Radiologists (2011) Standards and recommendations for the reporting and interpretation of imaging investigations by non-radiologist medically qualified practitioners and teleradiologists. The Royal College of Radiologists, London

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Francesca Coppola.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors do not have any competing interest to be disclosed.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Appendix

Appendix

Appendix shows all 19 questions with answers of the survey

1. In which region do you work?

Abruzzo

1.89 %

Basilicata

0.50 %

Calabria

3.09 %

Campania

6.80 %

Emilia Romagna

9.76 %

Friuli Venezia Giulia

2.02 %

Lazio

12.47 %

Liguria

3.90 %

Lombardia

15.99 %

Marche

2.77 %

Molise

0.38 %

Piemonte

5.73 %

Puglia

6.49 %

Sardegna

1.89 %

Sicilia

7.43 %

Toscana

8.82 %

Trentino Alto Adige

1.51 %

Umbria

1.57 %

Valle d’Aosta

0.44 %

Veneto

6.55 %

2. What age group do you belong in?

25–35 years old

16.96 %

36–45 years old

22.09 %

46–55 years old

25.76 %

56–65 years old

30.82 %

Over 65

4.37 %

3. What is the site of your main professional activity?

Public hospital

64.35 %

Private hospital

10.19 %

University hospital

12.06 %

Research institute

2.26 %

Private diagnostic centre

11.15 %

4. What is your professional degree?

Radiology resident

7.95 %

Consultant radiologist self employed (libero professionista)

15.70 %

Radiologist with fixed term managerial position (incarico dirigenziale a tempo determinato)

6.16 %

Radiologist with basic managerial position (incarico dirigenziale di natura professionale di base)

28.87 %

Radiologist with managerial position with high specialization (incarico dirigenziale di natura professionale elevate)

13.05 %

Radiologist director of simple unit (incarico di direzione di struttura semplice)

11.72 %

Radiologist director of complex unit (incarico di direzione di struttura complessa)

13.51 %

University researcher

0.86 %

Professor associate (professore associato)

0.99 %

Professor (professore ordinario)

1.19 %

5. Do you use digital signature in your Institute?

Yes

65.38 %

No

32.02 %

Occasionally

2.60 %

6. How are radiological images stored in your Institute?

On a analog archive

5.73 %

Each diagnostic modality has its own archive

5.02 %

On a PACS system

17.64 %

On PACS of the Department

48.16 %

On PACS of 2 or more health facilities

23.05 %

On PACS; Images and clinical data are accessible from electronic health records

8.11 %

7. Where do you usually use Teleradiology?

I don’t use teleradiology (if you answer yes go directly to question 15)

45.26 %

Within hospital on a dedicated workstation

47.52 %

At home

8.83 %

Everywhere using a mobile

5.93 %

8. Which application do you use for Teleradiology?

Same application utilized for other radiological activities

87.40 %

‘Stand alone’ application only for teleradiological activities

8.21 %

‘Add on’ application of reporting system with specific added functions

4.39 %

9. What are the reasons of the use of teleradiology? (Table 2)

For reporting of examinations performed in the company where I work (remote management procedures of intra-company deferrable urgent/emergency)

47.32 %

For reporting of examinations performed in the facility where I work (remote management procedures intra hospital)

33.26 %

As part of regular workflow in the institute where I work (outsourcing)

12.28 %

For a second or expert opinion from a colleague with another sub-specialty

21.65 %

For a second opinion from a colleague with a different specialty (for example a neurosurgeon)

15.96 %

For online multidisciplinary meetings

4.91 %

On a temporary basis (staff shortages, holidays and illness)

6.70 %

For night and week-end coverage

37.28 %

For double reading (for example mammography)

7.03 %

For research or teaching purposes

5.25 %

Other

8.82 %

10. What are the disciplines for which is required a second opinion in your Institute?

We receive second opinion requests for every kind of examination

24.37 %

Neuroradiological consults

17.05 %

For pediatric examinations

4.23 %

For evaluation of interventional procedures

13.04 %

In out Institute we do not receive second opinion requests

48.74 %

Other

6.52 %

11. What are the disciplines for which do you usually ask a second opinion?

We ask a second opinion for every kind of examination if particulary complicated

17.94 %

For neuroradiological examination

30.21 %

For pediatric examination

4.63 %

For evaluation of interventional procedures

7.99 %

We don’t ask second opinions to other Institute

51.39 %

12. How do you usually receive patient’s clinical informations?

By telephone

26.78 %

By fax

7.82 %

By e mail

4.37 %

By instant messaging software (ex. Viber, Whatsapp)

1.03 %

By direct connection with RIS

52.64 %

Utilizing a dedicated platforms

7.36 %

13. How do you usually send the examination’s report?

By telephone

4.30 %

By fax

5.58 %

By e mail

6.28 %

By instant messaging software (ex. Viber, Whatsapp)

0.58 %

By direct connection with RIS

74.77 %

Utilizing a dedicated platforms

8.49 %

18. In conclusion do you think that teleradiology could be an advantage or a disadvantage for radiologist?

Yes, I am enthusiastic, I think that teleradiology could be an advantage for radiologist

10.03 %

Yes, I am generally favorable

51.86 %

No, I am generally unfavorable

18.31 %

No, I am absolutely unfavorable, I think that teleradiology is a disadvantage for radiologist

11.53 %

I don’t know, I am not convinced

8.27 %

19. Do you think that teleradiology could have a future?

Absolutely not

2.08 %

No

3.89 %

I don’t know

14.01 %

Yes

58.63 %

Absolutely yes

21.40 %

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Coppola, F., Bibbolino, C., Grassi, R. et al. Results of an Italian survey on teleradiology. Radiol med 121, 652–659 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-016-0640-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-016-0640-7

Keywords

Navigation