Improving the quality of radiology reporting: A physician survey to define the target

Annette Johnson, Jun Ying, J. Shannon Swan, Linda S. Williams, Kimberly E. Applegate, Benjamin Littenberg

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

49 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose Our long-term goal is to improve the quality of reports in radiology imaging interpretation. The rationale for this project focused on identifying the characteristics of a high-quality report from the perspective of referring physicians and radiologists. Methods We undertook a survey of physician faculty at a large Midwestern academic medical center (including university, children's, veteran's, county and private practice hospitals) regarding radiology report quality concepts. Results Using a 5-point Likert scale, >95% of respondents indicated the highest importance rating (score=5) for radiology report characteristic "Accurate," with mean score of 4.94. Seventy-eight to 83% of respondents considered "Clear," "Complete" and "Timely" to have the highest importance rating, with means of these scores between 4.73 and 4.79. Somewhat less desirable characteristics included "Well-organized" and "Mentions pertinent negatives" - though radiologists tended to think the latter was less important than did all other categories of physician respondents. The single greatest problem area in reporting is lack of timeliness. Using a 10-point Likert scale, respondents gave a median score of seven for overall satisfaction with current reporting. Conclusions For high-quality radiology reporting, accuracy is most important. Clarity, completeness and timeliness are also very important. Radiologists tend to consider mentioning pertinent negatives as less important than do referring physicians; otherwise, respondents from different specialties largely agreed on which characteristics are most important for high-quality reports. There is room for improvement in physician satisfaction with radiology reporting.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)497-505
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of the American College of Radiology
Volume1
Issue number7
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2004
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Radiology
Physicians
Private Hospitals
Private Practice
Veterans
Surveys and Questionnaires
Radiologists

Keywords

  • Physician survey
  • Quality improvement
  • Radiology reporting

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Improving the quality of radiology reporting : A physician survey to define the target. / Johnson, Annette; Ying, Jun; Swan, J. Shannon; Williams, Linda S.; Applegate, Kimberly E.; Littenberg, Benjamin.

In: Journal of the American College of Radiology, Vol. 1, No. 7, 01.01.2004, p. 497-505.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Johnson, Annette ; Ying, Jun ; Swan, J. Shannon ; Williams, Linda S. ; Applegate, Kimberly E. ; Littenberg, Benjamin. / Improving the quality of radiology reporting : A physician survey to define the target. In: Journal of the American College of Radiology. 2004 ; Vol. 1, No. 7. pp. 497-505.
@article{0ce6e61629d6455e81a136ccdf79ae62,
title = "Improving the quality of radiology reporting: A physician survey to define the target",
abstract = "Purpose Our long-term goal is to improve the quality of reports in radiology imaging interpretation. The rationale for this project focused on identifying the characteristics of a high-quality report from the perspective of referring physicians and radiologists. Methods We undertook a survey of physician faculty at a large Midwestern academic medical center (including university, children's, veteran's, county and private practice hospitals) regarding radiology report quality concepts. Results Using a 5-point Likert scale, >95{\%} of respondents indicated the highest importance rating (score=5) for radiology report characteristic {"}Accurate,{"} with mean score of 4.94. Seventy-eight to 83{\%} of respondents considered {"}Clear,{"} {"}Complete{"} and {"}Timely{"} to have the highest importance rating, with means of these scores between 4.73 and 4.79. Somewhat less desirable characteristics included {"}Well-organized{"} and {"}Mentions pertinent negatives{"} - though radiologists tended to think the latter was less important than did all other categories of physician respondents. The single greatest problem area in reporting is lack of timeliness. Using a 10-point Likert scale, respondents gave a median score of seven for overall satisfaction with current reporting. Conclusions For high-quality radiology reporting, accuracy is most important. Clarity, completeness and timeliness are also very important. Radiologists tend to consider mentioning pertinent negatives as less important than do referring physicians; otherwise, respondents from different specialties largely agreed on which characteristics are most important for high-quality reports. There is room for improvement in physician satisfaction with radiology reporting.",
keywords = "Physician survey, Quality improvement, Radiology reporting",
author = "Annette Johnson and Jun Ying and Swan, {J. Shannon} and Williams, {Linda S.} and Applegate, {Kimberly E.} and Benjamin Littenberg",
year = "2004",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jacr.2004.02.019",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "1",
pages = "497--505",
journal = "Journal of the American College of Radiology",
issn = "1558-349X",
publisher = "Elsevier BV",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Improving the quality of radiology reporting

T2 - A physician survey to define the target

AU - Johnson, Annette

AU - Ying, Jun

AU - Swan, J. Shannon

AU - Williams, Linda S.

AU - Applegate, Kimberly E.

AU - Littenberg, Benjamin

PY - 2004/1/1

Y1 - 2004/1/1

N2 - Purpose Our long-term goal is to improve the quality of reports in radiology imaging interpretation. The rationale for this project focused on identifying the characteristics of a high-quality report from the perspective of referring physicians and radiologists. Methods We undertook a survey of physician faculty at a large Midwestern academic medical center (including university, children's, veteran's, county and private practice hospitals) regarding radiology report quality concepts. Results Using a 5-point Likert scale, >95% of respondents indicated the highest importance rating (score=5) for radiology report characteristic "Accurate," with mean score of 4.94. Seventy-eight to 83% of respondents considered "Clear," "Complete" and "Timely" to have the highest importance rating, with means of these scores between 4.73 and 4.79. Somewhat less desirable characteristics included "Well-organized" and "Mentions pertinent negatives" - though radiologists tended to think the latter was less important than did all other categories of physician respondents. The single greatest problem area in reporting is lack of timeliness. Using a 10-point Likert scale, respondents gave a median score of seven for overall satisfaction with current reporting. Conclusions For high-quality radiology reporting, accuracy is most important. Clarity, completeness and timeliness are also very important. Radiologists tend to consider mentioning pertinent negatives as less important than do referring physicians; otherwise, respondents from different specialties largely agreed on which characteristics are most important for high-quality reports. There is room for improvement in physician satisfaction with radiology reporting.

AB - Purpose Our long-term goal is to improve the quality of reports in radiology imaging interpretation. The rationale for this project focused on identifying the characteristics of a high-quality report from the perspective of referring physicians and radiologists. Methods We undertook a survey of physician faculty at a large Midwestern academic medical center (including university, children's, veteran's, county and private practice hospitals) regarding radiology report quality concepts. Results Using a 5-point Likert scale, >95% of respondents indicated the highest importance rating (score=5) for radiology report characteristic "Accurate," with mean score of 4.94. Seventy-eight to 83% of respondents considered "Clear," "Complete" and "Timely" to have the highest importance rating, with means of these scores between 4.73 and 4.79. Somewhat less desirable characteristics included "Well-organized" and "Mentions pertinent negatives" - though radiologists tended to think the latter was less important than did all other categories of physician respondents. The single greatest problem area in reporting is lack of timeliness. Using a 10-point Likert scale, respondents gave a median score of seven for overall satisfaction with current reporting. Conclusions For high-quality radiology reporting, accuracy is most important. Clarity, completeness and timeliness are also very important. Radiologists tend to consider mentioning pertinent negatives as less important than do referring physicians; otherwise, respondents from different specialties largely agreed on which characteristics are most important for high-quality reports. There is room for improvement in physician satisfaction with radiology reporting.

KW - Physician survey

KW - Quality improvement

KW - Radiology reporting

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84928096561&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84928096561&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jacr.2004.02.019

DO - 10.1016/j.jacr.2004.02.019

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84928096561

VL - 1

SP - 497

EP - 505

JO - Journal of the American College of Radiology

JF - Journal of the American College of Radiology

SN - 1558-349X

IS - 7

ER -