Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Digital Imaging 6/2009

Open Access 01-12-2009

The Challenges, Opportunities, and Imperative of Structured Reporting in Medical Imaging

Author: Bruce I. Reiner

Published in: Journal of Imaging Informatics in Medicine | Issue 6/2009

Login to get access

Abstract

Despite dramatic innovation in medical imaging and information system technologies, the radiology report has remained stagnant for more than a century. Structured reporting was created in the hopes of addressing well-documented deficiencies in report content and organization but has largely failed in its adoption due to concerns over workflow and productivity. A number of political, economical, and clinical quality-centric initiatives are currently taking place within medicine which will dramatically change the medical landscape including Pay for Performance, Evidence-Based Medicine, and the Physician Quality Reporting Initiative. These will collectively enhance efforts to improve quality in reporting, stimulate new technology development, and counteract the impending threat of commoditization within radiology. Structured reporting offers a number of unique opportunities and advantages over traditional free text reporting and will provide a means for the radiology community to add value to its most important service deliverable the radiology report.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Reiner BI, Siegel EL, Knight N: Radiology reporting: past, present, and future: the radiologist perspective. J Am Coll Radiol 5:313–319, 2007CrossRef Reiner BI, Siegel EL, Knight N: Radiology reporting: past, present, and future: the radiologist perspective. J Am Coll Radiol 5:313–319, 2007CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Reiner B, Siegel E, Protopapas Z, et al: Impact of filmless radiology on the frequency of clinician consultations with radiologists. AJR. Am J Roentgenol 173:1169–1172, 1999PubMed Reiner B, Siegel E, Protopapas Z, et al: Impact of filmless radiology on the frequency of clinician consultations with radiologists. AJR. Am J Roentgenol 173:1169–1172, 1999PubMed
3.
go back to reference Röntgen WK: Eine Neue Art von Strahlen, Würzburg, Germany: Medicophysical Institute of the University of Würzburg, 1896 Röntgen WK: Eine Neue Art von Strahlen, Würzburg, Germany: Medicophysical Institute of the University of Würzburg, 1896
4.
go back to reference Reiner BI, Siegel EL, Knight N: The evolution of the radiology report and the development of speech recognition. In: Reiner BI, Siegel EL, Weiss DL Eds. Electronic Reporting in the Digital Medical Enterprise. Great Falls: Society for Computer Applications in Radiology, 2003, pp. 1–7 Reiner BI, Siegel EL, Knight N: The evolution of the radiology report and the development of speech recognition. In: Reiner BI, Siegel EL, Weiss DL Eds. Electronic Reporting in the Digital Medical Enterprise. Great Falls: Society for Computer Applications in Radiology, 2003, pp. 1–7
5.
go back to reference Armas RR: Qualities of a good radiology report [letter]. AJR. Am J Roentgenol 170:1110, 1998PubMed Armas RR: Qualities of a good radiology report [letter]. AJR. Am J Roentgenol 170:1110, 1998PubMed
6.
go back to reference Lafortune M, Breton G, Baudouin JL: The radiological report: what is useful for the referring physician? Can Assoc Radiol J 39:140–143, 1988PubMed Lafortune M, Breton G, Baudouin JL: The radiological report: what is useful for the referring physician? Can Assoc Radiol J 39:140–143, 1988PubMed
7.
go back to reference McLoughlin RF, So CB, Gray RR, et al: Radiology reports: how much descriptive detail is enough? AJR. Am J Roentgenol 165:803–806, 1995PubMed McLoughlin RF, So CB, Gray RR, et al: Radiology reports: how much descriptive detail is enough? AJR. Am J Roentgenol 165:803–806, 1995PubMed
8.
go back to reference American College of Radiology: ACR Standard for communication: diagnostic radiology. In: Standards 2000–2001. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 2000, pp 1–3 American College of Radiology: ACR Standard for communication: diagnostic radiology. In: Standards 2000–2001. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 2000, pp 1–3
9.
go back to reference Hall FM: Language of the radiology report: primer for residents and wayward radiologists. AJR. Am J Roentgenol 175:1239–1242, 2000PubMed Hall FM: Language of the radiology report: primer for residents and wayward radiologists. AJR. Am J Roentgenol 175:1239–1242, 2000PubMed
10.
go back to reference Rothman M: Malpractice issues in radiology: radiology reports [letter]. AJR. Am J Roentgenol 170:1108–1109, 1998PubMed Rothman M: Malpractice issues in radiology: radiology reports [letter]. AJR. Am J Roentgenol 170:1108–1109, 1998PubMed
11.
go back to reference Institute of Medicine: To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System, Washington DC: National Academy Press, 2000 Institute of Medicine: To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System, Washington DC: National Academy Press, 2000
12.
go back to reference Institute of Medicine: Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century, Washington DC: National Academy Press, 2001 Institute of Medicine: Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century, Washington DC: National Academy Press, 2001
13.
go back to reference Singh H, Arora HS, Vij MS, et al: Communication outcomes of crtical imaging results on a computerized notification system. J Am Med Inform Assoc 14:459–466, 2007CrossRefPubMed Singh H, Arora HS, Vij MS, et al: Communication outcomes of crtical imaging results on a computerized notification system. J Am Med Inform Assoc 14:459–466, 2007CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Hanna D, Griswold P, Leape LL, et al: Communicating critical test results: safe practice recommendations. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 31:68–80, 2005PubMed Hanna D, Griswold P, Leape LL, et al: Communicating critical test results: safe practice recommendations. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 31:68–80, 2005PubMed
15.
go back to reference Badley BW: A clinician’s expectation of the radiologist. J Can Assoc Radiol 28:285–286, 1977PubMed Badley BW: A clinician’s expectation of the radiologist. J Can Assoc Radiol 28:285–286, 1977PubMed
16.
go back to reference van Dijk CN, de Leeuw PA: Imaging from an orthopedic point of view: what the orthopedic surgeon expects from the radiologist. Eur J Radiol 62:2–5, 2007CrossRefPubMed van Dijk CN, de Leeuw PA: Imaging from an orthopedic point of view: what the orthopedic surgeon expects from the radiologist. Eur J Radiol 62:2–5, 2007CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Mozumdar BC, Jones G: Medico-legal issues in radiological consultation. Radiol Manage 25:40–43, 2003PubMed Mozumdar BC, Jones G: Medico-legal issues in radiological consultation. Radiol Manage 25:40–43, 2003PubMed
19.
go back to reference Weiss DL, Langlotz CP: Structured reporting: patient care enhancement of productivity nightmare? Radiology 249:739–747, 2008CrossRefPubMed Weiss DL, Langlotz CP: Structured reporting: patient care enhancement of productivity nightmare? Radiology 249:739–747, 2008CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Khorasani R, Bates DW, Teeger S, et al: Is terminology used effectively to convey diagnostic certainty in radiology reports? Acad Radiol 10:685–688, 2003CrossRefPubMed Khorasani R, Bates DW, Teeger S, et al: Is terminology used effectively to convey diagnostic certainty in radiology reports? Acad Radiol 10:685–688, 2003CrossRefPubMed
22.
23.
go back to reference Lorenzi NM, Riley RT: Managing change: an overview. J Am Med Inform Assoc 7:116–124, 2000PubMed Lorenzi NM, Riley RT: Managing change: an overview. J Am Med Inform Assoc 7:116–124, 2000PubMed
24.
go back to reference Gardner D: Davies keynote lecture. Proceedings of the Computer-based Patient Record Institute, Washington: CPRI, 1998 Gardner D: Davies keynote lecture. Proceedings of the Computer-based Patient Record Institute, Washington: CPRI, 1998
25.
go back to reference Watzlawick P, Weakland JH, Fisch R: Change: Principles of Problem Formation and Problem Resolution, New York: Norton, 1974 Watzlawick P, Weakland JH, Fisch R: Change: Principles of Problem Formation and Problem Resolution, New York: Norton, 1974
26.
go back to reference Golembiewski RT, Billingsley K, Yeager S: Measuring change and persistence in human affairs: types of change generated by OD designs. J Appl Behav Sci 12:133–157, 1976CrossRef Golembiewski RT, Billingsley K, Yeager S: Measuring change and persistence in human affairs: types of change generated by OD designs. J Appl Behav Sci 12:133–157, 1976CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Bhan SN, Coblentz CL, Norman GR, et al: Effect of voice recognition on radiologist reporting time. Can Assoc Radiol J 59:203–209, 2008PubMed Bhan SN, Coblentz CL, Norman GR, et al: Effect of voice recognition on radiologist reporting time. Can Assoc Radiol J 59:203–209, 2008PubMed
28.
go back to reference Rana DS, Hurst G, Shepstone L, et al: Voice recognition for radiology reporting: is it good enough? Clin Radiol 60:1205–1212, 2005CrossRefPubMed Rana DS, Hurst G, Shepstone L, et al: Voice recognition for radiology reporting: is it good enough? Clin Radiol 60:1205–1212, 2005CrossRefPubMed
29.
go back to reference Plumb AA, Grieve FM, Khan SH: Survey of hospital clinciains’ preferences regarding the format of radiology reports. Clin Radiol 64:386–394, 2009CrossRefPubMed Plumb AA, Grieve FM, Khan SH: Survey of hospital clinciains’ preferences regarding the format of radiology reports. Clin Radiol 64:386–394, 2009CrossRefPubMed
30.
go back to reference Naik SS, Hanbridge A, Wilson SR: Radiology reports: examining radiologist and clinician preferences regarding style and content. Am J Roentgenol 176:591–598, 2001 Naik SS, Hanbridge A, Wilson SR: Radiology reports: examining radiologist and clinician preferences regarding style and content. Am J Roentgenol 176:591–598, 2001
31.
go back to reference Institute of Medicine: Patient Safety: Achieving a New Standard for Care, Washington DC: National Academy, 2004 Institute of Medicine: Patient Safety: Achieving a New Standard for Care, Washington DC: National Academy, 2004
32.
go back to reference Reiner BI: Quantifying radiation safety and quality in medical imaging. Part I: creating the infrastructure. J Am Coll Radiol 8:558–561, 2009CrossRef Reiner BI: Quantifying radiation safety and quality in medical imaging. Part I: creating the infrastructure. J Am Coll Radiol 8:558–561, 2009CrossRef
33.
go back to reference Reiner BI, Siegel EL: Decommoditizing radiology. J Am Coll Radiol 3:167–170, 2009CrossRef Reiner BI, Siegel EL: Decommoditizing radiology. J Am Coll Radiol 3:167–170, 2009CrossRef
34.
go back to reference Lieberman DA, Faigel DO, Logan JR, et al: Assessment of the quality of colonoscopy reports: results of a multi-center consortium. Gastrointest Endosc 69:645–653, 2009CrossRefPubMed Lieberman DA, Faigel DO, Logan JR, et al: Assessment of the quality of colonoscopy reports: results of a multi-center consortium. Gastrointest Endosc 69:645–653, 2009CrossRefPubMed
35.
go back to reference Lieberman D, Nadal M, Smith RA, et al: Standardized colonoscopy reporting and data system: report of the Quality Assurance Task Group of the national Colorectal Cancer Roundtable. Gastrointest Endosc 65:757–766, 2007CrossRefPubMed Lieberman D, Nadal M, Smith RA, et al: Standardized colonoscopy reporting and data system: report of the Quality Assurance Task Group of the national Colorectal Cancer Roundtable. Gastrointest Endosc 65:757–766, 2007CrossRefPubMed
36.
go back to reference Mammen JJ, Tuthill JM: Structured data in pathology reports: overcoming challenges with new tools. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 6:1041, 2008 Mammen JJ, Tuthill JM: Structured data in pathology reports: overcoming challenges with new tools. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 6:1041, 2008
37.
go back to reference Sundaram B, Patel S, Bogot N, et al: Anatomy and terminology for the interpretation and reporting of cardiac MDCT: part I, structured report, coronary calcium screening, and coronary artery anatomy. Am J Roentgenol 192:574–583, 2009CrossRef Sundaram B, Patel S, Bogot N, et al: Anatomy and terminology for the interpretation and reporting of cardiac MDCT: part I, structured report, coronary calcium screening, and coronary artery anatomy. Am J Roentgenol 192:574–583, 2009CrossRef
38.
go back to reference Kong A, Barnett GO, Mosteller F, et al: How medical professionals evaluate expressions of probability. N Engl J Med 315:740–744, 1986PubMedCrossRef Kong A, Barnett GO, Mosteller F, et al: How medical professionals evaluate expressions of probability. N Engl J Med 315:740–744, 1986PubMedCrossRef
39.
go back to reference Lazarus E, Mainiero MB, Schepps B, et al: BI-RADS lexicon for US and mammography: inter-observer variability and positive predictive value. Radiology 239:385–391, 2006CrossRefPubMed Lazarus E, Mainiero MB, Schepps B, et al: BI-RADS lexicon for US and mammography: inter-observer variability and positive predictive value. Radiology 239:385–391, 2006CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
The Challenges, Opportunities, and Imperative of Structured Reporting in Medical Imaging
Author
Bruce I. Reiner
Publication date
01-12-2009
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Journal of Imaging Informatics in Medicine / Issue 6/2009
Print ISSN: 2948-2925
Electronic ISSN: 2948-2933
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-009-9239-z

Other articles of this Issue 6/2009

Journal of Digital Imaging 6/2009 Go to the issue