Do clinicians read our reports? Integrating the radiology information system with the electronic patient record: experiences from the first 2 years

Diagnostic radiology and its future: what do clinicians need and think?

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the view of clinicians on diagnostic radiology and its future.

METHODS

Corresponding authors who published in the New England Journal of Medicine and the Lancet between 2010 and 2022 were asked to participate in a survey about diagnostic radiology and its future.

RESULTS

The 331 participating clinicians gave a median score of 9 on a 0-10 point scale to the value of medical imaging in improving patient-relevant outcomes. 40.6%, 15.1%, 18.9%, and 9.5% of clinicians indicated to interpret more than half of radiography, ultrasonography, CT, and MRI examinations completely by themselves, without consulting a radiologist or reading the radiology report. Two hundred eighty-nine clinicians (87.3%) expected an increase in medical imaging utilization in the coming 10 years, whereas 9 clinicians (2.7%) expected a decrease. The need for diagnostic radiologists in the coming 10 years was expected to increase by 162 clinicians (48.9%), to remain stable by 85 clinicians (25.7%), and to decrease by 47 clinicians (14.2%). Two hundred clinicians (60.4%) expected that artificial intelligence (AI) will not make diagnostic radiologists redundant in the coming 10 years, whereas 54 clinicians (16.3%) thought the opposite.

CONCLUSION

Clinicians who published in the New England Journal of Medicine or the Lancet attribute high value to medical imaging. They generally need radiologists for cross-sectional imaging interpretation, but for a considerable proportion of radiographs, their service is not required. Most expect medical imaging utilization and the need for diagnostic radiologists to increase in the foreseeable future, and do not expect AI to make radiologists redundant.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

The views of clinicians on radiology and its future may be used to determine how radiology should be practiced and be further developed.

KEY POINTS

• Clinicians generally regard medical imaging as high-value care and expect to use more medical imaging in the future. • Clinicians mainly need radiologists for cross-sectional imaging interpretation while they interpret a substantial proportion of radiographs completely by themselves. • The majority of clinicians expects that the need for diagnostic radiologists will not decrease (half of them even expect that we need more) and does not believe that AI will replace radiologists.

Verbal Notification of Radiology Results: Are radiologists meeting expectations?

BACKGROUND

Delayed communication of radiographic findings is associated with poor patient outcomes and significant medicolegal risk. Radiologists verbally contact referring practitioners with urgent findings, though practitioner's expectations regarding notification has rarely been examined.

AIM

To assess differences in preferred practice between radiologists and referring practitioners in the verbal communication of urgent radiology findings.

METHODS

For 33 clinical stems, respondents were asked if they would issue (radiologists) or expect to receive (referring practitioners) verbal notification of results or routine written communication only. Surveys were emailed to radiologists and referring practitioners of varying experience at a tertiary referral hospital in Melbourne, Victoria.

RESULTS

A total of 97 survey responses were received. 80 responses were from referring practitioners and 17 from radiologists. Referring practitioners were seen to slightly prefer verbal notification more often than issued by radiologists overall (61%; 95CI 57-66% verbal notification expected versus 58%; 95CI 52-64% issued). More senior referring practitioners with greater than 10 years' experience expected verbal notification more often (67%; 95CI 59-75%), and more senior radiologists issued verbal reports less often (54%; 95CI 39-69%). More junior referring practitioners, for example registrars or fellows, expected notification less often overall (59%; 95CI 43-76%). Subgroup analysis demonstrated statistically significant differences in notification preferences for certain clinical scenarios.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall results show fair correlation between referrer's expectations of verbal notification and the provision of verbal notification by radiologists. However, there were discrepancies in the practice and preferences of more junior and senior practitioners, in addition to in certain clinical scenarios. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

The role of key image notes in CT imaging study interpretation

The objective of the study was to investigate the clinical effects of CT key image notes (KIN) in the interpretation of a CT image study. All experiments were approved by the ethics committee of the local district. Six experienced radiologists were equally divided into routine reporting (RR) group and KIN reporting (KIN) group. CT scans of each 100 consecutive cases before and after using KIN technique were randomly selected, and the reports were made by group RR and KIN, respectively. All the reports were again reviewed 3 months later by both groups. All the results with using or not using KIN were interpreted and reinterpreted after 3 months by six clinicians, who were experienced in picture archiving and communication system (PACS) applications and were equally divided into the clinical routine report group and the clinical KIN report group, respectively. The results were statistically analyzed; the time used in making a report, the re-reading time 3 months later, and the consistency of imaging interpretation were determined and compared between groups. After using KIN technique, the time used in making a report was significantly increased (8.77 ± 5.27 vs. 10.53 ± 5.71 min, P < 0.05), the re-reading time was decreased (5.23 ± 2.54 vs. 4.99 ± 1.70 min, P < 0.05), the clinical interpretation and reinterpretation time after 3 months were decreased, and the consistency of the interpretation, reinterpretation between different doctors in different time was markedly improved (P < 0.01). CT report with KIN technique in PACS can significantly improve the consistency of the interpretation and efficiency in routine clinical work.

Clinic application of Epub of medical imaging film in CT workflow

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the clinical effects of the Epub of medical imaging film (EMIF) in CT workflow.

METHODS

All experiments were approved by the ethics committee of the local district. An EMIF application is fully implemented in PACS according to the DICOM 3.0 standard. For a statistical comparison in the effects of the EMIF in CT workflow, consecutive 50,000 CT hardcopy film prints have been randomly selected before and after the EMIF application in PACS, respectively. The role of the EMIF in the application of hardcopy films, the clinic practice, the integrality of the quality control data archived in PACS/RIS and so on is investigated.

RESULTS

For consecutive 50,000 CT hardcopy films before vs. after the EMIF application respectively, the counts of wasted films are 21 vs. 14 sheets due to the hardware problem, 28 vs. 0 sheets owing to operation errors, and 24 vs. 0 sheets caused by serious defects in image layout. Reissuing films for lost films and other special needs is 60 vs. 55 sheets. The average reissuing film time for each case is 16.97±6.14 vs. 4.36±1.26 min (t=5.94, p<0.01). The EMIF application has offered more convenience for medical viewing and reviewing, and has enhanced the integrality of the quality control data archived in PACS/RIS (χ2=320.835, P<0.01).

CONCLUSION

EMIF application in clinical healthcare can help enhance the function of PACS/RIS, and improve the quality and efficiency in CT routine work.

Does improved access to diagnostic imaging results reduce hospital length of stay? A retrospective study

BACKGROUND

One year after the introduction of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) to support diagnostic imaging at our hospital, clinicians had faster and better access to radiology reports and images; direct access to Computed Tomography (CT) reports in the Electronic Medical Record (EMR) was particularly popular. The objective of this study was to determine whether improvements in radiology reporting and clinical access to diagnostic imaging information one year after the ICT introduction were associated with a reduction in the length of patients' hospital stays (LOS).

METHODS

Data describing hospital stays and diagnostic imaging were collected retrospectively from the EMR during periods of equal duration before and one year after the introduction of ICT. The post-ICT period was chosen because of the documented improvement in clinical access to radiology results during that period. The data set was randomly split into an exploratory part used to establish the hypotheses, and a confirmatory part. The data was used to compare the pre-ICT and post-ICT status, but also to compare differences between groups.

RESULTS

There was no general reduction in LOS one year after ICT introduction. However, there was a 25% reduction for one group - patients with CT scans. This group was heterogeneous, covering 445 different primary discharge diagnoses. Analyses of subgroups were performed to reduce the impact of this divergence.

CONCLUSION

Our results did not indicate that improved access to radiology results reduced the patients' LOS. There was, however, a significant reduction in LOS for patients undergoing CT scans. Given the clinicians' interest in CT reports and the results of the subgroup analyses, it is likely that improved access to CT reports contributed to this reduction.

Determinants of frequency and longevity of hospital encounters' data use

Background

The identification of clinically relevant information enables improvement in user interfaces and in data management. However, it is difficult to identify what information is important in daily clinical care, and what is used occasionally. This study aims to determine for how long clinical documents are used in a Hospital Information System (HIS).

Methods

The access logs of 3 years of usage of a HIS were analysed concerning report departmental source, type of hospital encounter, and inpatient encounter ICD-9-CM main diagnosis. Reports median life indicates the median time elapsed between information creation and its usage. The models that better explains report views over time were explored.

Results

The number of report views in the study period was 656 583. Fifty two percent of the reports viewed by medical doctors in emergency encounters were from previous encounters - 21% at outpatient attendance, 19% in inpatient (wards) and 12% during emergency encounters. In an inpatient setting, 20% of the reports viewed were produced in previous encounters. The median life of information in documents is 1.5 days for emergency, 4.8 days for inpatient and 37.8 days for outpatient encounters. Immune-haemotherapy reports reach their median lives faster (7 days) than clinical pathology (15 days), gastroenterology (80 days) and pathology (118 days). The median life of reports produced in inpatient encounters varied from 36 days for neoplasms as the main diagnosis to 0.7 days for injury and poisoning. The model with the best fit (R² > 0.9) was the exponential.

Conclusions

The usage of past patient information varied significantly according to patient age, type of information, type of hospital encounter and medical cause (main diagnosis) for the encounter. The exponential model is a good fit to model how the reports are seen over time, so the design of user interfaces and repository management algorithms should take it in consideration.