Communicating Radiology Test Results: Are Our Phone Calls Excessive, Just Right, or Not Enough?

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.

Collaboration Between Physicians from Different Medical Specialties in Hospital Settings: A Systematic Review

Health care today is characterized by an increasing number of patients with comorbidities for whom interphysician collaboration seems very important. We reviewed the literature to understand what factors affect interphysician collaboration, determine how interphysician collaboration is measured, and determine its effects. We systematically searched six major databases. Based on 63 articles, we identified five categories that influence interphysician collaboration: personal factors, professional factors, preconditions and tools, organizational elements, and contextual characteristics. We identified a diverse set of mostly unvalidated tools for measuring interphysician collaboration that focus on information being transferred and understood, frequency of interaction and tone of the relationship, and value judgements about quality or satisfaction. We found that interphysician collaboration increased clinical outcomes as well as patient and staff satisfaction, while error rates and length of stay were reduced. The results should, however, be interpreted with caution, as most of the studies provide a low level of evidence.

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.

Use of a Macro as Nudge Factor in Communication Between Radiologists and Referring Physicians

INTRODUCTION/METHODS

Radiologists provide value through communication of imaging findings. We outline a quality improvement effort using a dedicated dictation macro as a behavioral nudge to increase direct communication between radiologists and referring physicians. Use of the macro was encouraged by departmental leadership and publicised widely prior to implementation. Monthly data regarding the use of the macro and corresponding departmental volumes were acquired over a 24 month period.

RESULTS

Over the 24-month study period, there were 1,334,555 total exams performed and 52,276 total communications (3.90%; monthly range 2.21-4.67%). The greatest increase in adoption rate occurred during the initial 4-month period, with sustained rates of communication achieved after month 4. Results were more frequently communicated to a clinician when a resident trainee was involved in the dictation process. The greatest number of documented communications was for x-ray, followed by Computed Tomography (CT), Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), Ultrasound (US), and nuclear medicine. Inpatient studies (7.23%) were communicated at a statistically significantly higher rate than Emergency Department (ED) (3.86%) or Outpatient (OP) studies (1.31%), P < 0.0001 for all comparisons. The rate of documented communication steadily increased across all patient classes.

CONCLUSION

Our findings demonstrate that simple interventions to increase the rate of documented communication can have durable results, and highlight the critical role radiologists play in timely and effective patient care delivery. Introduction of a communication macro coupled with departmental nudges resulted in increased direct communication of imaging results. This effort has promoted mutual engagement between radiologists and their colleagues, and demonstrates the active role of radiologists in direct imaging consultation.

Viewing Imaging Studies: How Patient Location and Imaging Site Affect Referring Physicians

The purpose of this study was to assess if clinical indications, patient location, and imaging sites predict the viewing pattern of referring physicians for CT and MR of the head, chest, and abdomen. Our study included 166,953 CT/MR images of head/chest/abdomen in 2016-2017 in the outpatient (OP, n = 83,981 CT/MR), inpatient (IP, n = 51,052), and emergency (ED, n = 31,920) settings. There were 125,329 CT/MR performed in the hospital setting and 41,624 in one of the nine off-campus locations. We extracted information regarding body region (head/chest/abdomen), patient location, and imaging site from the electronic medical records (EPIC). We recorded clinical indications and the number of times referring physicians viewed CT/MR (defined as the number of separate views of imaging in the EPIC). Data were analyzed with the Microsoft SQL and SPSS statistical software. About 33% of IP CT and MR studies are viewed > 6 times compared to 7% for OP and 19% of ED studies (p < 0.001). Conversely, most OP studies (55%) were viewed 1-2 times only, compared to 21% for IP and 38% for ED studies (p < 0.001). In-hospital exams are viewed (≥ 6 views; 39% studies) more frequently than off-campus imaging (≥ 6 views; 17% studies) (p < 0.001). For head CT/MR, certain clinical indications (i.e., stroke) had higher viewing rates compared to other clinical indications such as malignancy, headache, and dizziness. Conversely, for chest CT, dyspnea-hypoxia had much higher viewing rates (> 6 times) in IP (55%) and ED (46%) than in OP settings (22%). Patient location and imaging site regardless of clinical indications have a profound effect on viewing patterns of referring physicians. Understanding viewing patterns of the referring physicians can help guide interpretation priorities and finding communication for imaging exams based on patient location, imaging site, and clinical indications. The information can help in the efficient delivery of patient care.