Contextual Structured Reporting in Radiology: Implementation and Long-Term Evaluation in Improving the Communication of Critical Findings

Automated MRI pituitary structured reporting from free-text using a fine-tuned Llama model: a feasibility study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Structured reports in radiology have demonstrated substantial advantages over unstructured ones. However, the transition from unstructured to structured reporting can face challenges, as experienced radiologists worry about the potential loss of valuable information. In this study, we fine-tuned the Llama 2 model capable of generating structured pituitary MRI reports from unstructured reports.

METHODS

We used a training set comprising 104 pituitary MRI reports to fine-tune Llama 2 and 26 reports as a test set to evaluate the system. The dataset was annotated manually by three expert radiologists. For this annotation, the radiologists used the unstructured report and structured it into eight anatomical landmarks: adenohypophysis, pituitary stalk, optic chiasm, suprasellar cistern, neurohypophysis, cavernous sinuses, sphenoid sinuses and other findings.

RESULTS

Llama2 achieves a value greater than 0.79 on the ROUGE-L metric in four anatomical landmarks from free-text pituitary MRI reports. The other anatomical landmarks exceed 0.61 of ROUGE-L except for the other findings section.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests good performance in structuring anatomical landmarks on pituitary MRI reports using the fine-tune Llama 2 model.

Trauma and 'Whole' Body Computed Tomography: Role, Protocols, Appropriateness, and Evidence to Support its Use and When

Imaging plays a crucial role in the immediate evaluation of the trauma patient, particularly using multi-detector computed tomography (CT), and especially in moderately to severely injured trauma patients. There are specific areas of relative consensus, while other aspects of whole-body computed tomography (WB-CT) use remain controversial and are subject to opinion/debate based on the current literature. Even a few hours of a delayed diagnosis may result in a detrimental outcome for the patient. One must utilize all the tools available to enhance the interpretation of images. It is also important to recognize imaging pitfalls and artifacts to avoid unnecessary intervention.

Survey on the radiology report at Chris Hani Baragwanath Academic Hospital: Clinician and radiologist perspectives

Background

The radiology report is the primary means of conveying imaging findings between radiologists and clinicians. As a result, clinician satisfaction with the radiology report is an indicator of its quality and clinical relevance. It is crucial to identify factors that can enhance the radiology report in order to improve service delivery.

Objectives

This study evaluates clinician and radiologist opinions, preferences and clinician utilisation of the radiology report.

Method

Mixed quantitative and qualitative survey questionnaires were distributed in-person and online from December 2022 to February 2023 to a total of 287 clinicians and 43 independent medical practitioners specialising in radiology.

Results

A total of 73.0% of radiologists and 56.5% of clinicians expressed satisfaction with the radiology reports. Additionally, 72.0% of radiologists expressed dissatisfaction with the history provided on the referral forms. It was found that 87.6% of clinicians read the radiology report, while 26.2% reviewed the radiological imaging without referring to it. Interestingly, 77.8% of clinicians preferred itemised listed reports, whereas 53.8% of radiologists preferred reports in paragraph format. It was discovered that 69.6% of radiologists and 65.4% of clinicians preferred a standardised reporting format.

Conclusion

More than half of the clinicians and most of the radiologists expressed satisfaction with the radiology report. Both clinicians and radiologists showed a preference for a structured reporting format. A crucial element in constructing a good radiology report was having a relevant clinical history. The radiologist continued to be the preferred professional for interpreting radiological imaging.

Contribution

This survey was a good starting point for improving communication between clinicians and radiologists. This will ultimately result in reports that are more useful to clinicians and radiologists who have a better understanding of what should be included in reports and how they should be structured.

Contrasting pediatric specialty provider opinion between contextualized and structured radiology reports

BACKGROUND

Structured reporting (SR) replaced narrative (free text) reporting and utilizes templated headings and subheadings with findings typically based on the anatomy included in the examination. Its use has been widely advocated by radiology and non-radiology organizations as the new reporting standard. There are, however, shortcomings to SR, such as templated text not addressing a specific clinical indication. Contextual reporting (CR) fills this gap. CR is a type of SR which is tailored to a narrow clinical indication by including pertinent positive and negative findings for that specific clinical entity.

OBJECTIVE

This study assesses provider preferences for CR as compared to SR in the pediatric practice environment using a survey methodology.

METHODS & MATERIALS

Surveys with examples of SR and CR reports were sent electronically to two groups. One group was focused on neurological diseases and included pediatric specialists in neurosurgery, neurology, ENT, ED, and ophthalmology (190 people), referred to as the pediatric neuroimaging group. The pediatric neuroimaging group survey contained examples of CR and SR reports of an orbital CT for orbital cellulitis and a head CT for stroke. The other group was focused on gastrointestinal diseases, and included pediatric specialists in gastroenterology, general surgery, and the ED (159 people), referred to as the pediatric gastrointestinal (GI) imaging group. The pediatric GI imaging group survey contained example reports of an abdominal CT for appendicitis and an MRI enterography for Crohn's disease. Surveys utilizing a 5-point Likert scale were analyzed via Fischer's exact test with a p-value deemed statistically significant at less than 0.05.

RESULTS

349 individuals were contacted to participate in the survey. There were 81 (23 %, 81/349) survey respondents; 41 (22 %, 41/190) from the neuro group, and 40 (25 %, 40/159) from the GI group. 56 % (45/81) of all respondents preferred CR reports over traditional SR reports, while 29 % (23/81) did not. Most respondents (59 %, 48/81) indicated that CR reports are easier to interpret than traditional SR reports. Respondents from the pediatric neuroimaging group favored CR reports to a lesser degree (44 %, 36/81) compared to respondents from the pediatric GI imaging group (68 %, 55/81).

CONCLUSIONS

We learned from this survey that it would be beneficial to be very intentional about selecting clinical indications where CR would be most valued rather than trying to develop CR for any specific clinical indication. The study results indicate it is reasonable to continue further efforts at exploring the utility of contextualized reports.

Collaborating with non-radiological clinical colleagues

Paediatric radiology is a challenging and intriguing subspecialty, dealing with children, guardians and non-radiological clinical colleagues. Paediatric radiologists are routinely in contact with numerous paediatric and surgical subspecialties, all having different needs, perceptions, prioritisations and expectations. Moreover, the radiologist is part of the team of radiographers, sonographers, nurses and secretaries, assisted by appropriate equipment and electronic tools. The framework of good collaboration to ensure safety and effectiveness for the imaged child is a shared responsibility among all medical practitioners involved. Communication in routine practice has many forms and includes appropriately filled radiology requests in accordance to the patient's medical records, routine and timely production of structured, problem-solving radiology reports, face-to-face or electronic-assisted communications and discussions on a pre-defined framework, mutually-agreed and evidence-based protocols adjusted to local availability, skills and national and international guidelines. Mutual understanding of advantages and limitations of imaging is paramount. Well-meant discussions, professionalism and empathy should promote soft skills, bidirectional communication and good collaboration for the benefit of added-value paediatric radiology. International societies, health authorities, medical directors and senior consultants have the responsibility to suggest and safeguard frameworks and recommendations. Regular multidisciplinary meetings and multidisciplinary research projects under openness, honesty and transparency are pathways favouring good collaboration.

Perceptions of radiologists on structured reporting for cancer imaging-a survey by the European Society of Oncologic Imaging (ESOI)

OBJECTIVES

To assess radiologists' current use of, and opinions on, structured reporting (SR) in oncologic imaging, and to provide recommendations for a structured report template.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An online survey with 28 questions was sent to European Society of Oncologic Imaging (ESOI) members. The questionnaire had four main parts: (1) participant information, e.g., country, workplace, experience, and current SR use; (2) SR design, e.g., numbers of sections and fields, and template use; (3) clinical impact of SR, e.g., on report quality and length, workload, and communication with clinicians; and (4) preferences for an oncology-focused structured CT report. Data analysis comprised descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, and Spearman correlation coefficients.

RESULTS

A total of 200 radiologists from 51 countries completed the survey: 57.0% currently utilized SR (57%), with a lower proportion within than outside of Europe (51.0 vs. 72.7%; p = 0.006). Among SR users, the majority observed markedly increased report quality (62.3%) and easier comparison to previous exams (53.5%), a slightly lower error rate (50.9%), and fewer calls/emails by clinicians (78.9%) due to SR. The perceived impact of SR on communication with clinicians (i.e., frequency of calls/emails) differed with radiologists' experience (p < 0.001), and experience also showed low but significant correlations with communication with clinicians (r = - 0.27, p = 0.003), report quality (r = 0.19, p = 0.043), and error rate (r = - 0.22, p = 0.016). Template use also affected the perceived impact of SR on report quality (p = 0.036).

CONCLUSION

Radiologists regard SR in oncologic imaging favorably, with perceived positive effects on report quality, error rate, comparison of serial exams, and communication with clinicians.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

Radiologists believe that structured reporting in oncologic imaging improves report quality, decreases the error rate, and enables better communication with clinicians. Implementation of structured reporting in Europe is currently below the international level and needs society endorsement.

KEY POINTS

• The majority of oncologic imaging specialists (57% overall; 51% in Europe) use structured reporting in clinical practice. • The vast majority of oncologic imaging specialists use templates (92.1%), which are typically cancer-specific (76.2%). • Structured reporting is perceived to markedly improve report quality, communication with clinicians, and comparison to prior scans.

Structured reporting of computed tomography in the polytrauma patient assessment: a Delphi consensus proposal

OBJECTIVES

To develop a structured reporting (SR) template for whole-body CT examinations of polytrauma patients, based on the consensus of a panel of emergency radiology experts from the Italian Society of Medical and Interventional Radiology.

METHODS

A multi-round Delphi method was used to quantify inter-panelist agreement for all SR sections. Internal consistency for each section and quality analysis in terms of average inter-item correlation were evaluated by means of the Cronbach's alpha (Cα) correlation coefficient.

RESULTS

The final SR form included 118 items (6 in the "Patient Clinical Data" section, 4 in the "Clinical Evaluation" section, 9 in the "Imaging Protocol" section, and 99 in the "Report" section). The experts' overall mean score and sum of scores were 4.77 (range 1-5) and 257.56 (range 206-270) in the first Delphi round, and 4.96 (range 4-5) and 208.44 (range 200-210) in the second round, respectively. In the second Delphi round, the experts' overall mean score was higher than in the first round, and standard deviation was lower (3.11 in the second round vs 19.71 in the first round), reflecting a higher expert agreement in the second round. Moreover, Cα was higher in the second round than in the first round (0.97 vs 0.87).

CONCLUSIONS

Our SR template for whole-body CT examinations of polytrauma patients is based on a strong agreement among panel experts in emergency radiology and could improve communication between radiologists and the trauma team.

An Evolution of Reporting: Identifying the Missing Link

In recent years, radiologic imaging has undergone tremendous technological advances and is now a pillar of diagnostic and treatment algorithms in clinical medicine. The increased complexity and volume of medical imaging has led clinicians to become ever more reliant on radiologists to both identify and interpret patient studies. A radiologist’s report provides key insights into a patient’s immediate state of health, information that is vital when choosing the most appropriate next steps in management. As errors in imaging interpretation or miscommunication of results can greatly impair patient care, identifying common error sources is vital to minimizing their occurrence. Although mistakes in medical imaging are practically inevitable, changes to the delivery of imaging reporting and the addition of artificial intelligence algorithms to analyze clinicians’ communication skills can minimize the impact of these errors, keep up with the continuously evolving landscape of medical imaging, and ultimately close the communication gap.

Automated Notification of Relevant Expected or Incidental Findings in Imaging Exams in a Verticalized Healthcare System

To describe the implementation of a standardized code system for notification of relevant expected or incidental findings in imaging exams and use of an automated textual mining tool of radiological report narratives, created to facilitate directing patients to specific lines of care, reducing the waiting time for interventions, consultations, and minimizing delays to treatment. We report our 12-month initial experience with the process. A standardized code was attached to every radiology report when a relevant finding was observed. On a daily basis, the notifications was sent to a dedicated medical team to review the notified abnormality and decide a proper action. Between October 1, 2020, and September 30, 2021, 40,296 sectional examinations (CT and MR scans) were evaluated in 35,944 patients. The main findings reported were calcified plaques on the trunk of the left coronary artery or trunk like, pulmonary nodule/mass and suspected liver disease. Data of follow-up was available in 10,019 patients. The age ranged from 24 to 101 years (mean of 71.3 years) and 6,626 were female (66.1%). In 2,548 patients a complementary study or procedure was indicated, and 3,300 patients were referred to a specialist. Customized database searches looking for critical or relevant findings may facilitate patient referral to specific care lines, reduce the waiting time for interventions or consultations, and minimize delays to treatment.

Structured reporting in radiology: a systematic review to explore its potential

OBJECTIVES

Structured reporting (SR) in radiology reporting is suggested to be a promising tool in clinical practice. In order to implement such an emerging innovation, it is necessary to verify that radiology reporting can benefit from SR. Therefore, the purpose of this systematic review is to explore the level of evidence of structured reporting in radiology. Additionally, this review provides an overview on the current status of SR in radiology.

METHODS

A narrative systematic review was conducted, searching PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library using the syntax 'radiol*' AND 'structur*' AND 'report*'. Structured reporting was divided in SR level 1, structured layout (use of templates and checklists), and SR level 2, structured content (a drop-down menu, point-and-click or clickable decision trees). Two reviewers screened the search results and included all quantitative experimental studies that discussed SR in radiology. A thematic analysis was performed to appraise the evidence level.

RESULTS

The search resulted in 63 relevant full text articles out of a total of 8561 articles. Thematic analysis resulted in 44 SR level 1 and 19 level 2 reports. Only one paper was scored as highest level of evidence, which concerned a double cohort study with randomized trial design.

CONCLUSION

The level of evidence for implementing SR in radiology is still low and outcomes should be interpreted with caution.

KEY POINTS

• Structured reporting is increasingly being used in radiology, especially in abdominal and neuroradiological CT and MRI reports. • SR can be subdivided into structured layout (SR level 1) and structured content (SR level 2), in which the first is defined as being a template in which the reporter has to report; the latter is an IT-based manner in which the content of the radiology report can be inserted and displayed into the report. • Despite the extensive amount of research on the subject of structured reporting, the level of evidence is low.