Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Pediatric Radiology 13/2017

01-12-2017 | Original Article

The fate of radiology report recommendations at a pediatric medical center

Authors: Bonmyong Lee, Hansel J. Otero, Matthew T. Whitehead

Published in: Pediatric Radiology | Issue 13/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The American College of Radiology (ACR) practice parameters for communication dictate that follow-up recommendations be suggested when appropriate. Radiologists assume that referring physicians read their reports and heed their advice. In reality, recommendations might not be carried out or even acknowledged.

Objective

We aimed to determine the proportion of imaging recommendations that are acknowledged and acted upon.

Materials and methods

We conducted a retrospective review of all consecutive radiology reports containing “recommend” in the impression at a single academic children’s hospital over a 1-month period. We documented point of care (emergency department, inpatient, outpatient), study type, recommendation wording, and communication method (report only or direct verbal). We reviewed medical records to ascertain whether the recommendations were acknowledged or executed. We used chi-square tests to evaluate associations between variables. P<0.05 was considered significant.

Results

We reviewed 526 reports and excluded 73. We included the remaining 453 reports, from 370 unique patients (201 male, 169 female). Inpatients comprised most reports (n=223), followed by emergency department (ED) patients (n=118) and outpatients (n=112). Among these reports, 69% (n=313) of recommendations were executed. Of the 140 recommendations not carried out, 14% were acknowledged in clinical notes. Compliance correlated with point of care (ED>inpatient>outpatient; P=0.001) but not with additional verbal communication (P=0.33), study type (radiograph vs. other; P=0.35) or type of follow-up recommendation (follow-up imaging vs. other; P=0.99).

Conclusion

Nearly one-third of radiology report follow-up recommendations are not executed. Recommendations are most commonly neglected for outpatient imaging reports. The radiology community should take steps to improve recommendation adherence.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Wallis A, McCoubrie P (2011) The radiology report — are we getting the message across? Clin Radiol 66:1015–1022CrossRefPubMed Wallis A, McCoubrie P (2011) The radiology report — are we getting the message across? Clin Radiol 66:1015–1022CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Goergen SK, Pool JJ, Turner TJ et al (2013) Evidence-based guideline for the written radiology report: methods, recommendations and implementation challenges. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 57:1–7CrossRefPubMed Goergen SK, Pool JJ, Turner TJ et al (2013) Evidence-based guideline for the written radiology report: methods, recommendations and implementation challenges. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 57:1–7CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Lukaszewicz A, Uricchio J, Gerasymchuk G (2016) The art of the radiology report: practical and stylistic guidelines for perfecting the conveyance of imaging findings. Can Assoc Radiol J 67:318–321CrossRefPubMed Lukaszewicz A, Uricchio J, Gerasymchuk G (2016) The art of the radiology report: practical and stylistic guidelines for perfecting the conveyance of imaging findings. Can Assoc Radiol J 67:318–321CrossRefPubMed
5.
6.
go back to reference Lee B, Whitehead MT (2016) Radiology reports: what you think you’re saying and what they think you’re saying. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol 46:186–195CrossRefPubMed Lee B, Whitehead MT (2016) Radiology reports: what you think you’re saying and what they think you’re saying. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol 46:186–195CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Shuaib W, Vijayasarathi A, Johnson JO et al (2014) Factors affecting patient compliance in the acute setting: an analysis of 20,000 imaging reports. Emerg Radiol 21:373–379CrossRefPubMed Shuaib W, Vijayasarathi A, Johnson JO et al (2014) Factors affecting patient compliance in the acute setting: an analysis of 20,000 imaging reports. Emerg Radiol 21:373–379CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Blaivas M, Lyon M (2007) Frequency of radiology self-referral in abdominal computed tomographic scans and the implied cost. Am J Emerg Med 25:396–399CrossRefPubMed Blaivas M, Lyon M (2007) Frequency of radiology self-referral in abdominal computed tomographic scans and the implied cost. Am J Emerg Med 25:396–399CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Baumgarten DA, Nelson RC (1997) Outcome of examinations self-referred as a result of spiral CT of the abdomen. Acad Radiol 4:802–805CrossRefPubMed Baumgarten DA, Nelson RC (1997) Outcome of examinations self-referred as a result of spiral CT of the abdomen. Acad Radiol 4:802–805CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Furtado CD, Aguirre DA, Sirlin CB et al (2005) Whole-body CT screening: spectrum of findings and recommendations in 1,192 patients. Radiology 237:385–394CrossRefPubMed Furtado CD, Aguirre DA, Sirlin CB et al (2005) Whole-body CT screening: spectrum of findings and recommendations in 1,192 patients. Radiology 237:385–394CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Sistrom CL, Dreyer KJ, Dang PP et al (2009) Recommendations for additional imaging in radiology reports: multifactorial analysis of 5.9 million examinations. Radiology 253:453–461CrossRefPubMed Sistrom CL, Dreyer KJ, Dang PP et al (2009) Recommendations for additional imaging in radiology reports: multifactorial analysis of 5.9 million examinations. Radiology 253:453–461CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Tanpitukpongse TP, Grady AT, Sosa JA et al (2015) Incidental thyroid nodules on CT or MRI: discordance between what we report and what receives workup. AJR Am J Roentgenol 205:1281–1287CrossRefPubMed Tanpitukpongse TP, Grady AT, Sosa JA et al (2015) Incidental thyroid nodules on CT or MRI: discordance between what we report and what receives workup. AJR Am J Roentgenol 205:1281–1287CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Wickramarachchi BN, Meyer-Rochow GY, McAnulty K et al (2016) Adherence to adrenal incidentaloma guidelines is influenced by radiology report recommendations. ANZ J Surg 86:483–486CrossRefPubMed Wickramarachchi BN, Meyer-Rochow GY, McAnulty K et al (2016) Adherence to adrenal incidentaloma guidelines is influenced by radiology report recommendations. ANZ J Surg 86:483–486CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Al-Mutairi A, Meyer AN, Chang P et al (2015) Lack of timely follow-up of abnormal imaging results and radiologists' recommendations. J Am Coll Radiol 12:385–389CrossRefPubMed Al-Mutairi A, Meyer AN, Chang P et al (2015) Lack of timely follow-up of abnormal imaging results and radiologists' recommendations. J Am Coll Radiol 12:385–389CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Singh H, Thomas EJ, Mani S et al (2009) Timely follow-up of abnormal diagnostic imaging test results in an outpatient setting: are electronic medical records achieving their potential? Arch Intern Med 169:1578–1586PubMedPubMedCentral Singh H, Thomas EJ, Mani S et al (2009) Timely follow-up of abnormal diagnostic imaging test results in an outpatient setting: are electronic medical records achieving their potential? Arch Intern Med 169:1578–1586PubMedPubMedCentral
16.
go back to reference Gunderman R, Ambrosius WT, Cohen M (2000) Radiology reporting in an academic children’s hospital: what referring physicians think. Pediatr Radiol 30:307–314CrossRefPubMed Gunderman R, Ambrosius WT, Cohen M (2000) Radiology reporting in an academic children’s hospital: what referring physicians think. Pediatr Radiol 30:307–314CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Gunn AJ, Sahani DV, Bennett SE et al (2013) Recent measures to improve radiology reporting: perspectives from primary care physicians. J Am Coll Radiol 10:122–127CrossRefPubMed Gunn AJ, Sahani DV, Bennett SE et al (2013) Recent measures to improve radiology reporting: perspectives from primary care physicians. J Am Coll Radiol 10:122–127CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Arenson (2009) Recommendations for additional imaging in radiology reports: radiologists’ self-referral or good clinical practice? Radiology 253:291–292CrossRefPubMed Arenson (2009) Recommendations for additional imaging in radiology reports: radiologists’ self-referral or good clinical practice? Radiology 253:291–292CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Lee SI, Krishnaraj A, Chatterji M et al (2012) When does a radiologist's recommendation for follow-up result in high-cost imaging? Radiology 262:544–549CrossRefPubMed Lee SI, Krishnaraj A, Chatterji M et al (2012) When does a radiologist's recommendation for follow-up result in high-cost imaging? Radiology 262:544–549CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Doshi AM, Kiritsy M, Rosenkrantz AB (2015) Strategies for avoiding recommendations for additional imaging through a comprehensive comparison with prior studies. J Am Coll Radiol 12:657–663CrossRefPubMed Doshi AM, Kiritsy M, Rosenkrantz AB (2015) Strategies for avoiding recommendations for additional imaging through a comprehensive comparison with prior studies. J Am Coll Radiol 12:657–663CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Berlin L, Murphy DR, Singh H (2014) Breakdowns in communication of radiological findings: an ethical and medico-legal conundrum. Diagnosis 1:263–268PubMedPubMedCentral Berlin L, Murphy DR, Singh H (2014) Breakdowns in communication of radiological findings: an ethical and medico-legal conundrum. Diagnosis 1:263–268PubMedPubMedCentral
23.
go back to reference Berlin L (2002) Communicating findings of radiologic examinations: whither goest the radiologist’s duty? AJR Am J Roentgeol 178:809–815CrossRef Berlin L (2002) Communicating findings of radiologic examinations: whither goest the radiologist’s duty? AJR Am J Roentgeol 178:809–815CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Poon EG, Gandhi TK, Murff SHJ et al (2004) ‘I wish I had seen this test result earlier!’: dissatisfaction with test result management systems in primary care. Arch Intern Med 164:2223–2228CrossRefPubMed Poon EG, Gandhi TK, Murff SHJ et al (2004) ‘I wish I had seen this test result earlier!’: dissatisfaction with test result management systems in primary care. Arch Intern Med 164:2223–2228CrossRefPubMed
26.
go back to reference Khorasani R, Bates DW, Teeger S et al (2003) Is terminology used effectively to convey diagnostic certainty in radiology reports? Acad Radiol 10:685–688CrossRefPubMed Khorasani R, Bates DW, Teeger S et al (2003) Is terminology used effectively to convey diagnostic certainty in radiology reports? Acad Radiol 10:685–688CrossRefPubMed
27.
go back to reference Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, Dann E et al (2014) Using radiology reports to encourage evidence-based practice in the evaluation of small, incidentally detected pulmonary nodules. A preliminary study. Ann Am Thorac Soc 11:211–214CrossRefPubMed Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, Dann E et al (2014) Using radiology reports to encourage evidence-based practice in the evaluation of small, incidentally detected pulmonary nodules. A preliminary study. Ann Am Thorac Soc 11:211–214CrossRefPubMed
28.
go back to reference Boland GW, Thrall JH, Gazelle GS et al (2011) Decision support for radiologist report recommendations. J Am Coll Radiol 8:819–823CrossRefPubMed Boland GW, Thrall JH, Gazelle GS et al (2011) Decision support for radiologist report recommendations. J Am Coll Radiol 8:819–823CrossRefPubMed
29.
go back to reference Singh H, Arora HS, Viji M et al (2007) Communication outcomes of critical imaging results in a computerized notification system. J Am Med Inform Assoc 14:459–466CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Singh H, Arora HS, Viji M et al (2007) Communication outcomes of critical imaging results in a computerized notification system. J Am Med Inform Assoc 14:459–466CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
The fate of radiology report recommendations at a pediatric medical center
Authors
Bonmyong Lee
Hansel J. Otero
Matthew T. Whitehead
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Pediatric Radiology / Issue 13/2017
Print ISSN: 0301-0449
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1998
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-017-3960-4

Other articles of this Issue 13/2017

Pediatric Radiology 13/2017 Go to the issue

Hermes

Hermes