Implications of Direct Patient Online Access to Radiology Reports Through Patient Web Portals

Decoding medical jargon: The use of AI language models (ChatGPT-4, BARD, microsoft copilot) in radiology reports

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate Artificial Intelligence (AI) language models (ChatGPT-4, BARD, Microsoft Copilot) in simplifying radiology reports, assessing readability, understandability, actionability, and urgency classification.

METHODS

This study evaluated the effectiveness of these AI models in translating radiology reports into patient-friendly language and providing understandable and actionable suggestions and urgency classifications. Thirty radiology reports were processed using AI tools, and their outputs were assessed for readability (Flesch Reading Ease, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level), understandability (PEMAT), and the accuracy of urgency classification. ANOVA and Chi-Square tests were performed to compare the models' performances.

RESULTS

All three AI models successfully transformed medical jargon into more accessible language, with BARD showing superior readability scores. In terms of understandability, all models achieved scores above 70%, with ChatGPT-4 and BARD leading (p < 0.001, both). However, the AI models varied in accuracy of urgency recommendations, with no significant statistical difference (p = 0.284).

CONCLUSION

AI language models have proven effective in simplifying radiology reports, thereby potentially improving patient comprehension and engagement in their health decisions. However, their accuracy in assessing the urgency of medical conditions based on radiology reports suggests a need for further refinement.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Incorporating AI in radiology communication can empower patients, but further development is crucial for comprehensive and actionable patient support.

Patient Communication Innovations in Breast Imaging

Effective patient communication is paramount in breast radiology, where standardized reporting and patient-centered care practices have long been established. This communication profoundly affects patient experience, well-being, and adherence to medical advice. Breast radiologists play a pivotal role in conveying diagnostic findings and addressing patient concerns, particularly in the context of cancer diagnoses. Technological advances in radiology reporting, patient access to electronic medical records, and the demand for immediate information access have reshaped radiologists' communication practices. Innovative approaches, including image-rich reports, visual timelines, and video radiology reports, have been used in various institutions to enhance patient comprehension and engagement.

Recommendations to Improve Management of Incidental Pulmonary Nodules in Canada: Expert Panel Consensus

Introduction: Incidental pulmonary nodules (IPN) are common radiologic findings, yet management of IPNs is inconsistent across Canada. This study aims to improve IPN management based on multidisciplinary expert consensus and provides recommendations to overcome patient and system-level barriers. Methods: A modified Delphi consensus technique was conducted. Multidisciplinary experts with extensive experience in lung nodule management in Canada were recruited to participate in the panel. A survey was administered in 3 rounds, using a 5-point Likert scale to determine the level of agreement (1 = extremely agree, 5 = extremely disagree). Results: Eleven experts agreed to participate in the panel; 10 completed all 3 rounds. Consensus was achieved for 183/217 (84.3%) statements. Panellists agreed that radiology reports should include a standardized summary of findings and follow-up recommendations for all nodule sizes (ie, <6, 6-8, and >8 mm). There was strong consensus regarding the importance of an automated system for patient follow-up and that leadership support for organizational change at the administrative level is of utmost importance in improving IPN management. There was no consensus on the need for standardized national referral pathways, development of new guidelines, or establishing a uniform picture archiving and communication system. Conclusion: Canadian IPN experts agree that improved IPN management should include standardized radiology reporting of IPNs, standardized and automated follow-up of patients with IPNs, guideline adherence and implementation, and leadership support for organizational change. Future research should focus on the implementation and long-term effectiveness of these recommendations in clinical practice.

Patient Access of Their Radiology Reports Before and After Implementation of 21st Century Cures Act Information-Blocking Provisions at a Large Multicampus Health System

BACKGROUND. To implement provisions of the 21st Century Cures Act that address information blocking, federal regulations mandated that health systems provide patients with immediate access to elements of their electronic health information, including imaging results. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to compare patient access of radiology reports before and after implementation of the information-blocking provisions of the 21st Century Cures Act. METHODS. This retrospective study included patients who underwent outpatient imaging examinations from January 1, 2021, through December 31, 2022, at three campuses within a large health system. The system implemented policies to comply with the Cures Act information-blocking provisions on January 1, 2022. Imaging results were released in patient portals after a 36-hour embargo period before implementation versus being released immediately after report finalization after implementation. Data regarding patient report access in the portal and report acknowledgment by the ordering provider in the EMR were extracted and compared between periods. RESULTS. The study included reports for 1,188,692 examinations in 388,921 patients (mean age, 58.5 ± 16.6 [SD] years; 209,589 women, 179,290 men, eight nonbinary individuals, and 34 individuals for whom sex information was missing). A total of 77.5% of reports were accessed by the patient before implementation versus 80.4% after implementation. The median time from report finalization to report release in the patient portal was 36.0 hours before implementation versus 0.4 hours after implementation. The median time from report release to first patient access of the report in the portal was 8.7 hours before implementation versus 3.0 hours after implementation. The median time from report finalization to first patient access was 45.0 hours before implementation versus 5.5 hours after implementation. Before implementation, a total of 18.5% of reports were first accessed by the patient before being accessed by the ordering provider versus 44.0% after implementation. After implementation, the median time from report release to first patient access was 1.8 hours for patients with age younger than 60 years old versus 4.3 hours for patients 60 years old or older. CONCLUSION. After implementation of institutional policies to comply with 21st Century Cures Act information-blocking provisions, the length of time until patients accessed imaging results decreased, and the proportion of patients who accessed their reports before the ordering provider increased. CLINICAL IMPACT. Radiologists should consider mechanisms to ensure timely and appropriate communication of important findings to ordering providers.

Medical Image sharing: What do the public see when reviewing radiographs? A pilot study

INTRODUCTION

Policymakers wish to extend access to medical records, including medical imaging. Appreciating how patients might review radiographs could be key to establishing future training needs for healthcare professionals and how image sharing could be integrated into practice.

METHOD

A pilot study in the UK using a survey was distributed to adult participants via the online research platform Prolific. All subjects were without prior professional healthcare experience. Participants reviewed ten radiographs (single projection only) and were asked a two-stage question. Firstly, if the radiograph was 'normal' or 'abnormal' and secondly, if they had answered 'abnormal', to identify the abnormality from a pre-determined list featuring generic terms for pathologies.

RESULTS

Fifty participants completed the survey. A mean of 65.8 % of participants were able to correctly identify if radiographs were normal or abnormal. Results in relation to the identification of a pathology were not as positive, but still notable with a mean of 46.4 % correctly identifying abnormalities. Qualitative data demonstrated that members of the public are enthralled with reviewing radiographs and intrigued to understand their performance in identifying abnormalities.

CONCLUSION

In the pilot, members of the public could identify if a radiograph is normal or abnormal to a reasonable standard. Further detailed interpretation of images requires supportive intervention. This pilot study suggests that patients can participate in image sharing as part of their care. Image sharing may be beneficial to the therapeutic relationship, aiding patient understanding and enhancing consultations between healthcare professional and patient. Further research is indicated.

Self-harm, suicide and brain death: the role of the radiologist

Suicide is a leading cause of death worldwide and takes many forms, which include hanging, jumping from a height, sharp force trauma, ingestion/poisoning, drowning, and firearm injuries. Self-harm and suicide are associated with particular injuries and patterns of injury. Many of these patterns are apparent on imaging. Self-harm or suicidal intent may be overlooked initially in such cases, particularly when the patient is unconscious or uncooperative. Correct identification of these findings by the radiologist will allow a patient's management to be tailored accordingly and may prevent future suicide attempts. The initial role of the radiologists in these cases is to identify life-threatening injuries that require urgent medical attention. The radiologist can add value by drawing attention to associated injuries, which may have been missed on initial clinical assessment. In many cases of self-harm and suicide, imaging is more reliable than clinical assessment. The radiologist may be able to provide important prognostic information that allows clinicians to manage expectations and plan appropriately. Furthermore, some imaging studies will provide essential forensic information. Unfortunately, many cases of attempted suicide will end in brain death. The radiologist may have a role in these cases in identifying evidence of hypoxic-ischaemic brain injury, confirming a diagnosis of brain death through judicious use of ancillary tests and, finally, in donor screening for organ transplantation. A review is presented to illustrate the imaging features of self-harm, suicide, and brain death, and to highlight the important role of the radiologist in these cases.

Patient experience of imaging reports: A systematic literature review

Introduction

Written reports are often the sole form of communication from diagnostic imaging. Reports are increasingly being accessed by patients through electronic records. Experiencing medical terminology can be confusing and lead to miscommunication, a decrease in involvement and increased anxiety for patients.

Methods

This systematic review was designed to include predefined study selection criteria and was registered prospectively on PROSPERO (CRD42020221734). MEDLINE, CINAHL, Academic Search Complete (EBSCOhost), EMBASE, Scopus and EThOS were searched to identify articles meeting the inclusion criteria. Studies were assessed against the Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool version 2018 for quality. A segregated approach was used to synthesise data. A thematic synthesis of the qualitative data and a narrative review of the quantitative data were performed, and findings of both syntheses were then integrated.

Findings

Twelve articles reporting 13 studies were included. This review found that patients' experiences of imaging reports included positive and negative aspects. The study identified two main themes encompassing both qualitative and quantitative findings. Patients reported their experiences regarding their understanding of reports and self-management.

Discussion

Patient understanding of imaging reports is multi factorial including medical terminology, communication aids and errors. Self-management through direct access is important to patients. While receiving bad news is a concern, responsibility for accessing this is accepted.

Conclusion

A patient-centred approach to writing imaging reports may help to improve the quality of service, patient experience and wider health outcomes.

Patient Understanding of Oncologic Radiology Reports: Is Access to Electronic Medical Records Helpful?

Access to electronic medical record (EMR) patient portals made it easier for patients to quickly acquire the results of their radiology studies. However, there is little research on how well oncology patients understand the findings of radiology reports presented in the online portal without patient-physician discussion. This study assessed oncology patients' confidence and accuracy in interpreting radiology reports either with or without layman translations. A survey based on a radiology report was administered to oncology patients and caregivers. Two versions of the radiological report were randomly distributed, either a standard report or one with layman translations to evaluate participant understanding and accuracy of interpreting radiological results. Among 85 participants, a majority (67.8%) reported wanting patient portal access to radiological reports, yet less than a quarter (21.2%) felt confident in reading and interpreting radiological reports. Univariate binary logistic regression models showed that participants who read the lay report were 8 times more likely to find the radiology report easy to read. This research demonstrated that the inclusion of layman translation of standard radiology reports improves oncology patients' and caregivers' understanding of such reports with statistically significant and clinically meaningful increases in readability.

A Patient-Centered Model of Fast-Track Lung Cancer Diagnosis

INTRODUCTION

Despite the increasing importance of digital resources in modern life over the past decades, little is known about the impact of internet-based solutions on patient's health. We aimed to study the potential benefit of a digital platform helping patients to deal with abnormal chest CT scan revealing possible lung cancer.

METHODS

We set up a fast-track lung cancer diagnosis pathway through a secure online platform. Patient-generated information combined with online review of their imaging enables preplanning of further investigations ahead of clinical assessment. We compared outcomes of "self-referred" patients (patient group), who directly fill out the online questionnaire, to general practitioner-driven patients (GP group), who were referred by their GP.

RESULTS

From June 2021 to June 2022, we included 125 patients (61% males, median age 67 years, IQR 56.9-72.5): 41% in the patient group and 59% in the GP group. No difference was found between groups in terms of time from contact to first appointment (median 5 days in both groups, P = .6), percentage of pathways including prebooked tests (94% vs. 92%, P = .6), number of scheduled invasive procedures (median 1, IQR 1-2 vs. 2, IQR 1-2, P = .4) and in final cancer diagnosis (76% vs. 78%, P = .4).

CONCLUSION

A lung cancer diagnosis pathway directly accessible by patients through a secure online platform was feasible and as efficient as the usual general practitioner pathway. It demonstrated the benefit of leaning on new digital tools in order to answer to the new challenges of a patient-centered health care system.

Implementation of Incidental Liver Lesion Clinically Integrated Workflow Increases Compliance With ACR Follow-Up Guidelines, Closing Care Gaps

OBJECTIVE

Follow established management guidelines from the ACR and improve adherence to follow-up recommendations for incidental liver lesions (ILLs) for all patients undergoing CT abdomen and pelvis with contrast (CTAPw) examinations, with advocacy from a multidisciplinary care team.

METHODS

A mandatory structured radiology reporting module was developed for use in CTAPw reports for ILL recommendations. Data from the electronic medical record describing patients with radiology-reported ILLs and their clinical risk diagnosis categories were tabulated in a queryable electronic database. A nurse co-ordinator initiated workflow to communicate the need for ILL follow-up MRI to ordering physicians and primary care providers. MRIs were ordered by the ILL team. An interactive process was undertaken with continuous review to improve identification of eligible patients and adherence to recommendations.

RESULTS

During the initial launch phase from December 2020 to March 2021, 1,577 ILLs were detected on 20,667 CTAPw examinations, and for those with the characterize now recommendation, 36 of 114 (31.6%) received follow-up in 30 days. Between January 2021 and June 2022, 117,520 CTAPws were performed and 4,371 ILLs were detected. Using the ILL workflow, in the MRI now cohort, follow-up occurred within 30 days in 202 of 542 (36.2%) patients, and a total of 368 of 542 (67.9%) patients have completed their follow-up to date.

DISCUSSION

Using a focused effort to close a gap in ILL care, adherence to follow-up recommendations improved over the long term, although there remains a gap in adherence to short-term interventions. A multidisciplinary approach, radiology reporting, and software solutions were leveraged to improve a complex process.

Low Back Pain Patients' Perceptions Regarding Their Own Radiology Reports: Pre-Intervention Survey

Purpose

While advanced medical technology and unlimited access to medical information might benefit and empower patients, these same advantages may pose some risks, especially in the cases where patients have direct access to advanced imaging studies. The aim of this work was to evaluate three domains related to patients with lower back pain: the patients' perceptions, misconceptions and the experience of anxiety-related symptoms following direct access to their thoraco-lumbar spine radiology report. An additional aim was the assessment of possible associations with catastrophization.

Patients and Methods

Patients who were referred to the spine clinic, following the completion of a CT or MRI of their thoraco-lumbar spine were surveyed. Patient perceptions of the importance of having direct access to their imaging report and of the concern they attribute to the medical terms found in their report were evaluated using a set of questionnaires. The medical terms severity scores were then correlated to a reference clinical score created for the same medical terms by spine surgeons. Lastly, patients' anxiety-related symptoms and Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) after reading their radiology report were evaluated.

Results

Data from 162 participants (44.6% female), with mean age of 53.1 ± 15.6 years, were collected. Sixty-three percent of the patients stated that reading their report helped them gain better understanding of their medical condition and 84% agreed that having early access to the report helped improve communication with the physician. Patients' degree of concern associated with the medical terms in their imaging report ranged between 2.07 and 3.75, on a scale of 1-5. The patient's degree of concerns were significantly higher for six common medical terms and significantly lower in one, when compared to experts' opinions. A mean (± SD) of 2.86±2.79 anxiety-related symptoms was reported. The mean Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PSC) score was 29.18 ±11.86, ranging from 2 to 52. Both the degree of concerns and the number of symptoms reported were significantly associated with the PCS.

Conclusion

Direct access to radiology reports might provoke anxiety symptoms, especially in patients with a tendency for catastrophic thinking. Increasing awareness amongst spine clinicians and radiologist about possible risks associated with direct access to radiology reports could contribute to preventing patients' misconceptions and unnecessary anxiety-related symptoms.

Proposed Questions to Assess the Extent of Knowledge in Understanding the Radiology Report Language

Radiotherapy and diagnostic imaging play a significant role in medical care. The amount of patient participation and communication can be increased by helping patients understand radiology reports. There is insufficient information on how to measure a patient's knowledge of a written radiology report. The goal of this study is to design a tool that will measure patient literacy of radiology reports. A radiological literacy tool was created and evaluated as part of the project. There were two groups of patients: control and intervention. A sample radiological report was provided to each group for reading. After reading the report, the groups were quizzed to see how well they understood the report. The participants answered the questions and the correlation between the understanding of the radiology report and the radiology report literacy questions was calculated. The correlations between radiology report literacy questions and radiology report understanding for the intervention and control groups were 0.522, p < 0.001, and 0.536, p < 0.001, respectively. Our radiology literacy tool demonstrated a good ability to measure the awareness of radiology report understanding (area under the receiver operator curve in control group (95% CI: 0.77 (0.71-0.81)) and intervention group (95% CI: 0.79 (0.74-0.84))). We successfully designed a tool that can measure the radiology literacy of patients. This tool is one of the first to measure the level of patient knowledge in the field of radiology understanding.

Urgent and unexpected findings in oncology and hematology patients: A practical approach to imaging

Urgent and unexpected findings are very common in oncology and haematology patients. This article reviews the most important points included in the European Society of Radiology's guidelines and proposes a practical approach to reporting and communicating these findings more efficiently. This approach is explained with illustrative examples. Radiologists can provide added value in the management of these findings by helping referring clinicians reach the best decisions. To this end, it is essential to know the imaging manifestations of the most common findings that must be reported urgently, such as the specific toxicity of different treatments, the complications of tumours and catheters, infections, and thrombosis. Moreover, it is crucial to consider the individual patient's treatment, risk factors, clinical situation, and immune status.

Talking Points: Enhancing Communication Between Radiologists and Patients

Radiologists communicate along multiple pathways, using written, verbal, and non-verbal means. Radiology trainees must gain skills in all forms of communication, with attention to developing effective professional communication in all forms. This manuscript reviews evidence-based strategies for enhancing effective communication between radiologists and patients through direct communication, written means and enhanced reporting. We highlight patient-centered communication efforts, available evidence, and opportunities to engage learners and enhance training and simulation efforts that improve communication with patients at all levels of clinical care.

Communicating with patients in the age of online portals-challenges and opportunities on the horizon for radiologists

The deployment of electronic patient portals increasingly allows patients throughout Europe to consult and share their radiology reports and images securely and timely online. Technical solutions and rules for releasing reports and images on patient portals may differ among institutions, regions and countries, and radiologists should therefore be familiar with the criteria by which reports and images are made available to their patients. Radiologists may also be solicited by patients who wish to discuss complex or critical imaging findings directly with the imaging expert who is responsible for the diagnosis. This emphasises the importance of radiologists’ communication skills as well as appropriate and efficient communication pathways and methods including electronic tools. Radiologists may also have to think about adapting reports as their final product in order to enable both referrers and patients to understand imaging findings. Actionable reports for a medical audience require structured, organ-specific terms and quantitative information, whereas patient-friendly summaries should preferably be based on consumer health language and include explanatory multimedia support or hyperlinks. Owing to the cultural and linguistic diversity in Europe dedicated solutions will require close collaboration between radiologists, patient representatives and software developers; software tools using artificial intelligence and natural language processing could potentially be useful in this context. By engaging actively in the challenges that are associated with increased communication with their patients, radiologists will not only have the opportunity to contribute to patient-centred care, but also to enhance the clinical relevance and the visibility of their profession.

Understanding Patient Experiences, Opinions, and Actions Taken After Viewing Their Own Radiology Images Online: Web-Based Survey

Background

The ability for patients to directly view their radiology images through secure electronic portals is rare in the American health care system. We previously surveyed patients within our health system and found that a large majority wanted to view their own radiology images online, and we have since implemented this new feature.

Objective

We aim to understand patient experiences, opinions, and actions taken after viewing their own radiology images online.

Methods

We emailed a web-based survey to patients who recently viewed their radiology images via our electronic patient portal.

Results

We sent 1825 surveys to patients and received 299 responses (response rate 16.4%). Patients reported a favorable experience (258/299, 86.3% agree) viewing their radiology images online. Patients found value in reading their radiology reports (288/299, 96.3% agree) and viewing their images (267/299, 89.3% agree). Overall, patients felt that accessing and viewing their radiology images online increased their understanding of their medical condition (258/299, 82.9%), made them feel more in control and reassured (237/299, 79.2% and 220/299, 73.6%, respectively), and increased levels of trust (214/299, 71.6%). Only 6.4% (19/299) of the patients indicated concerns with finding errors, 6.4% (19/299) felt that viewing their images online made them worry more, and 7% (21/299) felt confused when viewing their images online. Of patients who viewed their images online, 45.2% (135/299) took no action with their images, 32.8% (98/299) saved a copy for their records, 25.4% (76/299) shared them with their doctor, and 14.7% (44/299) shared them with another doctor for a second opinion. A total of 9 patients (3%) shared their radiology images on Facebook, Instagram, or both, primarily to inform family and friends. Approximately 10.4% (31/299) of the patients had questions about their radiology images after viewing them online, with the majority (20/31, 65%) seeking out a doctor, and far fewer (5/31, 16%) choosing to ask a family member about their images. Finally, respondents viewed their images online using 1 or more devices, including computers, smartphones, tablets, or a combination of these devices. Approximately 26.7% (103/385) of the responses noted technical difficulties, with the highest incidence rate occurring with smartphones.

Conclusions

We report the first known survey results from patients who viewed their own radiology images through a web-based portal. Patients reported high levels of satisfaction and increased levels of trust, autonomy, reassurance, and medical understanding. Only a small minority of patients expressed anxiety or confusion. We suggest that patient access to radiology images, such as patient access to radiology reports, is highly desired by patients and is operationally practical. Other health care institutions should consider offering patients access to their radiology images online in the pursuit of information transparency.

Video Radiology Reports: A Valuable Tool to Improve Patient-Centered Radiology

Background: Improved communication between radiologists and patients is a key component of patient-centered radiology. Objective: The purpose of this study was to create patient-centered video radiology reports using simple-to-understand language and annotated images and to assess the effect of these reports on patients' experience and understanding of their imaging results. Methods: During a 4-month study period, faculty radiologists created video radiology reports using a tool integrated within the diagnostic viewer that allows both image and voice capture. To aid patients' understanding of cross-sectional images, cinematic rendered images were automatically created and made immediately available to radiologists at the workstation, allowing their incorporation into video radiology reports. Video radiology reports were made available to patients via the institutional health portal along with the written radiology report and the examination images. Patient views of the video report were recorded, and descriptive analyses were performed on radiologist and examination characteristics as well as patient demographics. A survey was sent to patients to obtain feedback on their experience. Results: During the study period, 105 out of 227 faculty radiologists created a total of 3763 video radiology reports (mean number of reports per radiologist ± SD, 36 ± 27 reports). Mean time to create a video report was 238 ± 141 seconds. Patients viewed 864 unique video reports. The overall video radiology report experience rating based on 101 patient surveys was 4.7 out of 5. The rating for how well the video report helped patients understand their findings was also 4.7 out of 5. Of the patients who responded to the survey,91% preferred having both written and video reports together over having written reports alone. Conclusion: Patient-centered video radiology reports are a useful tool to help improve patient understanding of imaging results. The mechanism of creating the video reports and delivering them to patients can be integrated into existing informatics infrastructure. Clinical Impact: Video radiology reports can play an important role in patient-centered radiology, increasing patient understanding of imaging results, and they may improve the visibility of radiologists to patients and highlight the radiologist's important role in patient care.

Are English-language online patient education materials related to breast cancer risk assessment understandable, readable, and actionable?

PURPOSE

To evaluate the readability, understandability, and actionability of online patient education materials (OPEM) related to breast cancer risk assessment.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We queried seven English-language search terms related to breast cancer risk assessment: breast cancer high-risk, breast cancer risk factors, breast cancer family history, BRCA, breast cancer risk assessment, Tyrer-Cuzick, and Gail model. Websites were categorized as: academic/hospital-based, commercial, government, non-profit or academic based on the organization hosting the site. Grade-level readability of qualifying websites and categories was determined using readability metrics and generalized estimating equations based on written content only. Readability scores were compared to the recommended parameters set by the American Medical Association (AMA). Understandability and actionability of OPEM related to breast cancer high-risk were evaluated using the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT) and compared to criteria set at ≥70%. Descriptive statistics and inter-rater reliability analysis were utilized.

RESULTS

343 websites were identified, of which 162 met study inclusion criteria. The average grade readability score was 12.1 across all websites (range 10.8-13.4). No website met the AMA recommendation. Commercial websites demonstrated the highest overall average readability of 13.1. Of the 26 websites related to the search term breast cancer high-risk, the average understandability and actionability scores were 62% and 34% respectively, both below criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

OPEM on breast cancer risk assessment available to the general public do not meet criteria for readability, understandability, or actionability. To ensure patient comprehension of medical information online, future information should be published in simpler, more appropriate terms.

Prevalence of incidental intracranial findings on magnetic resonance imaging: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

As the volume and fidelity of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the brain increase, observation of incidental findings may also increase. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the prevalence of various incidental findings.

METHODS

PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE and SCOPUS were searched from inception to May 24, 2021. We identified 6536 citations and included 35 reports of 34 studies, comprising 40,777 participants. A meta-analysis of proportions was performed, and age-stratified estimates for each finding were derived from age-adjusted non-linear models.

RESULTS

Vascular abnormalities were observed in 423/35,706 participants (9.1/1000 scans, 95%CI 5.2-14.2), ranging from 2/1000 scans (95%CI 0-7) in 1-year-olds to 16/1000 scans (95%CI 1-43) in 80-year-olds. Of these, 204/34,306 were aneurysms (3.1/1000 scans, 95%CI 1-6.3), which ranged from 0/1000 scans (95%CI 0-5) at 1 year of age to 6/1000 scans (95%CI 3-9) at 60 years. Neoplastic abnormalities were observed in 456/39,040 participants (11.9/1000 scans, 95%CI 7.5-17.2), ranging from 0.2/1000 scans (95%CI 0-10) in 1-year-olds to 34/1000 scans (95%CI 12-66) in 80-year-olds. Meningiomas were the most common, in 246/38,076 participants (5.3/1000 scans, 95%CI 2.3-9.5), ranging from 0/1000 scans (95%CI 0-2) in 1-year-olds to 17/1000 scans (95%CI 4-37) in 80-year-olds. Chiari malformations were observed in 109/27,408 participants (3.7/1000 scans, 95%CI 1.8-6.3), pineal cysts in 1176/32,170 (9/1000 scans, 95%CI 1.8-21.4) and arachnoid cysts in 414/36,367 (8.5/1000 scans, 95%CI 5.8-11.8).

CONCLUSION

Incidental findings are common on brain MRI and may result in substantial resource expenditure and patient anxiety but are often of little clinical significance.

Patient-centered Reporting in Radiology: A Single-site Survey Study of Lung Cancer Screening Results

PURPOSE

This study aimed to assess whether patients preferred traditional or patient-friendly radiology reports and, secondarily, whether one reporting style led to a subjective improvement in patients' understanding of their imaging results and next steps in their clinical care.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This randomized study included patients who had previously enrolled in an institutional comprehensive lung cancer screening program. Three hundred patients were randomly selected from the program database to receive both traditional and patient-centered radiology reports. Randomization also occurred at both the risk level of the fictitious test results (low, intermediate, or high) and the order in which the reports were read by each participant. Participants completed a survey providing demographic information and indicating which report style was preferred and which report style led to a better understanding of screening results and future options. In addition, each report style was rated (from 1 to 5) for clarity, understandability, attractiveness, and helpfulness.

RESULTS

A total of 46 responses for report preference data and 41 responses for attribute rating data were obtained. Overall, participants demonstrate a preference for patient-friendly reports (65.2%) over traditional reports (21.7%). On a 5-point scale, average ratings for patient-friendly reports were higher than traditional reports by 1.2 (P<0.001) for clarity, 1.5 (P<0.001) for understandability, 1.5 (P<0.001) for attractiveness, and 1.0 (P<0.001) for helpfulness.

CONCLUSION

Data suggest that patients prefer patient-friendly reports over traditional reports and find them to be clearer, more comprehensible, more attractive, and more helpful.

Incidental Breast Cancer on Chest CT: Is the Radiology Report Enough?

OBJECTIVE

To determine the frequency of incidental breast findings reported on chest CT for which breast imaging follow-up is recommended, the follow-up adherence rate, and the breast malignancy rate. The relationship between strength of recommendation verbiage and follow-up was also explored.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted of chest CT reports from July 1, 2018, to June 30, 2019, to identify those with recommendation for breast imaging follow-up. Patients with recently diagnosed or prior history of breast malignancy were excluded. Medical records were reviewed to evaluate patient adherence to follow-up, subsequent BI-RADS assessment, and diagnosis (if tissue sampling performed). Adherence was defined as diagnostic breast imaging performed within 6 months of CT recommendation. Chi-square and Mann-Whitney U tests were used to determine statistical significance of categorical and continuous variables, respectively.

RESULTS

A follow-up recommendation for breast imaging was included in chest CT reports of 210 patients; 23% (48/210) returned for follow-up breast imaging. All patients assessed as BI-RADS 4 or 5 underwent image-guided biopsy. Incidental breast cancer was diagnosed in 15% (7/48) of patients who underwent follow-up breast imaging as a result of a CT report recommendation and 78% (7/9) of patients undergoing biopsy. There was no significant difference in follow-up adherence when comparing report verbiage strength.

CONCLUSION

It is imperative that incidental breast findings detected on chest CT undergo follow-up breast imaging to establish accurate and timely diagnosis of breast malignancy. Outreach to referring providers and patients may have greater impact on the diagnosis of previously unsuspected breast cancer.

Prospective Analysis of Radiology Resource Utilization and Outcomes for Participation in Oncology Multidisciplinary Conferences

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Radiology participation is necessary in oncology multidisciplinary conferences (MDCs), but the resources required to do so are often unaccounted for. In this prospective study we provide an analysis of resource utilization as a function of outcomes for all MDCs covered by an entire radiology section and provide a time-based cost estimate.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Following institutional review board approval, prospective data on all MDCs covered by abdominal radiologists at a single tertiary care academic center were obtained over nine weeks. A predefined questionnaire was used by a single observer who attended every imaging review and recorded the total time spent by the radiologists and several outcome measures. The total time recorded was used to provide a time-based cost estimate using a national salary survey.

RESULTS

Six radiologists participated in a total of 57 MDCs, with 577 cases reviewed and discussed. 181 (31%) cases were performed at outside facilities requiring full reinterpretation. Clinically significant revisions to original reports were recorded in 107 (18.5%) cases. Radiologist input directly resulted in alteration of cancer staging in 65 (11%) patients and specific recommendations for follow-up diagnostic workup in 280 (48%) of cases. The mean total time devoted by the staff radiologist per week to MDCs was 18.7 hours/week, nearly a half of full-time effort, or 8% of total effort per radiologist. The total annual projected cost of radiology coverage for each weekly MDC was $26,920.

CONCLUSION

Section-wide radiologist participation in MDCs directly resulted in change in clinical management in nearly half of reviewed cases. This was achieved at a notable time cost, highlighting the need for efficient integration of radiology MDC participation into radiologist workflow and compensation models.

Patient Access to an Online Portal for Outpatient Radiological Images and Reports: Two Years' Experience

To assess the incidence of outpatient examinations delivered through a web portal in the Latium Region in 2 years and compare socio-demographic characteristics of these users compared to the total of examinations performed. All radiological exams (including MRI, X-ray and CT) performed from March 2017 to February 2019 were retrospectively analysed. For each exam, anonymized data of users who attended the exam were extracted and their characteristics were compared according to digital access to the reports. Overall, 9068 exams were performed in 6720 patients (55.8% males, median age 58 years, interquartile range (IQR) 46-70) of which 90.2% residents in Rome province, mainly attending a single radiological examination (77.3%). Among all exams, 446 (4.9%) were accessed, of which 190 (4.4%) in the first and 5.4% in the second year (p < 0.041). MRI was the type of exams mostly accessed (175, 7.0%). Being resident in the provinces of the Latium Region other than Rome was associated with a higher access rate (OR = 1.84, p = 0.001). Considering the overall costs sustained to implement a web portal which allows users a personal access to their own reports, if all users would have accessed/downloaded their exams, an overall users' and hospital savings up to €255,808.28 could have been determined. The use of a web portal could represent a consistent economical advantage for the user, the hospital and the environment. Even if increasing over time, the use of web portal is still limited and strategies to increase the use of such systems should be implemented.

Patient and Provider Feedback for Radiology Reports: Implementation of a Quality Improvement Project in a Multi-Institutional Setting

BACKGROUND

Radiology does not routinely solicit feedback on radiology reports. The aim of the study is to report the feasibility and initial results of a multi-institutional quality improvement project implementing patient and provider feedback for radiology reports.

METHODS

A HIPAA-compliant, institutional review board-waived quality improvement effort at two institutions obtaining patient and provider feedback for radiology reports was implemented from January 2018 to May 2020.

INTERVENTION

A two-question survey (quantitative review and open text box feedback) was embedded into the electronic health records for patients and providers. Text-based feedback was evaluated, and patterns of feedback were categorized: thoroughness of reports, error in reports, timeliness of reports, access to reports, desire for patient summary, and desire for key images. We performed the χ² test for categorical variables. P < .05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

Of 367 responses, patients provided 219 of 367 (60%), and providers provided 148 of 367 (40%) of the feedback. A higher proportion of patients reported satisfaction with reports (76% versus 65%, P = .023) and provided more feedback compared with providers (71% versus 50%, P < .0001). Both patients and providers commented on the thoroughness of reports (12% of patients versus 9% of providers) and errors in reports (8% of patients and 9% of providers). Patients disproportionately commented on timeliness of reports (11%) and access to the reports (6%) compared with providers (3% each). In addition, 7% of patients expressed a desire for patient summaries.

CONCLUSION

Report-specific patient and provider feedback demonstrate the feasibility of embedding surveys into electronic medical records. Up to 9% of the feedback addressed an error in reports.

Urgent and unexpected findings in oncology and hematology patients: a practical approach to imaging

Urgent and unexpected findings are very common in oncology and hematology patients. This article reviews the most important points included in the European Society of Radiology's guidelines and proposes a practical approach to reporting and communicating these findings more efficiently. This approach is explained with illustrative examples. Radiologists can provide added value in the management of these findings by helping referring clinicians reach the best decisions. To this end, it is essential to know the imaging manifestations of the most common findings that must be reported urgently, such as the specific toxicity of different treatments, the complications of tumors and catheters, infections, and thrombosis. Moreover, it is crucial to consider the individual patient's treatment, risk factors, clinical situation, and immune status.

Patient Electronic Access to Final Radiology Reports: What Is the Current Standard of Practice, and Is an Embargo Period Appropriate?

Patients have a right to their medical records, and it has become commonplace for institutions to set up online portals through which patients can access their electronic health information, including radiology reports. However, institutional approaches vary on how and when such access is provided. Many institutions have advocated built-in "embargo" periods, during which radiology reports are not immediately released to patients, to give ordering clinicians the opportunity to first receive, review, and discuss the radiology report with their patients. To understand current practices, a telephone survey was conducted of 83 hospitals identified in the 2019-2020 U.S. News & World Report Best Hospitals Rankings. Of 70 respondents, 91% (64 of 70) offered online portal access. Forty-two percent of those with online access (27 of 64 respondents) reported a delay of 4 days or longer, and 52% (33 of 64 respondents) indicated that they first send reports for review by the referring clinician before releasing to the patient. This demonstrates a lack of standardized practice in prompt patient access to health records, which may soon be mandated under the final rule of the 21st Century Cures Act. This article discusses considerations and potential benefits of early access for patients, radiologists, and primary care physicians in communicating health information and providing patient-centered care. © RSNA, 2021.

Computed Tomography for Abdominal Pain: Do Radiology Reports Answer the Clinical Question?

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

To assess whether abdominopelvic computed tomography (CT) radiology reports directly address a cause for pain when pain is included in the scan indication.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Four hundred and ninety-five random abdominopelvic CT reports containing "pain" in the indication were retrospectively reviewed. The position of pain descriptors within the indication, the presence of an oncology-related indication in addition to pain and whether a cause for pain was addressed in the impression were recorded. Linguistic analysis of indication and impression sections was performed. Comparisons between reports that addressed pain and those that did not were conducted using Chi-square, Fisher exact, and two-tailed t-tests.

RESULTS

A cause for pain was addressed in 454 of 495 (91.7%) report impressions. Indications with both oncology-related and pain-related descriptors were less likely to have pain directly addressed (χ² (1, N = 495) = 16.4, p < .001). There was no significant association between where pain appeared within the indication and whether pain was addressed (χ² (1, N = 495) = 3.2, p = .07). Whether an impression conveyed a normal result did not influence if pain was addressed (p = .49). Impression word count and complexity were higher in the addressed group compared to the not addressed group (word count 66.6 vs. 51.9, p= .02, Composite grade level 30.1 vs. 25.3, p= .02).

CONCLUSION

Radiologists at our institution consistently addressed a cause for pain on abdominopelvic CTs when pain was in the indication. However, oncology patients who also had an indication of pain were less likely to have a cause for pain addressed. Impression complexity was high for all reports, though higher in those where pain was addressed.

Designing a Consumer-Friendly Radiology Report using a Patient-Centered Approach

Patient portals have helped accelerate patient engagement in treatment. Patient understanding of radiology reports has become a necessity, and we are working to design a patient-friendly radiology report that can be easily understood. We have based the design of this new radiology report on the results of a previous study that examined patient desires and needs by exploring their questions posted on online discussion forums. The current design was tested by presenting it in two groups, a control group, and an intervention group. In our evaluation, we relied on the following five concepts: understanding (quiz), cosmetics appearance, perceived ease of use, acceptance, and preference. The results showed that the new design outperformed the current design in all five concepts with an overall of (P < .00). Based on these results, we have determined that the radiology report should include both an image and notes section, and the design can be applied to all types of radiological examinations using various imaging devices. We believe this design will be an important building block in facilitating patient understanding of radiology reports.

Understanding patient needs and gaps in radiology reports through online discussion forum analysis

Our objective is to investigate patient needs and understand information gaps in radiology reports using patient questions that were posted on online discussion forums. We leveraged online question and answer platforms to collect questions posted by patients to understand current gaps and patient needs. We retrieved six hundred fifty-nine (659) questions using the following sites: Yahoo Answers, Reddit.com, Quora, and Wiki Answers. The questions retrieved were analyzed and the major themes and topics were identified. The questions retrieved were classified into eight major themes. The themes were related to the following topics: radiology report, safety, price, preparation, procedure, meaning, medical staff, and patient portal. Among the 659 questions, 35.50% were concerned with the radiology report. The most common question topics in the radiology report focused on patient understanding of the radiology report (62 of 234 [26.49%]), image visualization (53 of 234 [22.64%]), and report representation (46 of 234 [19.65%]). We also found that most patients were concerned about understanding the MRI report (32%; n = 143) compared with the other imaging modalities (n = 434). Using online discussion forums, we discussed major unmet patient needs and information gaps in radiology reports. These issues could be improved to enhance radiology design in the future.

Impact of patient access to their electronic health record: systematic review

Patient access to their own electronic health records (EHRs) is likely to become an integral part of healthcare systems worldwide. It has the potential to decrease the healthcare provision costs, improve access to healthcare data, self-care, quality of care, and health and patient-centered outcomes. This systematic literature review is aimed at identifying the impact in terms of benefits and issues that have so far been demonstrated by providing patients access to their own EHRs, via providers' secure patient portals from primary healthcare centers and hospitals. Searches were conducted in PubMed, MEDLINE, CINHAL, and Google scholar. Over 2000 papers were screened and were filtered based on duplicates, then by reading the titles and finally based on their abstracts or full text. In total, 74 papers were retained, analyzed, and summarized. Papers were included if providing patient access to their own EHRs was the primary intervention used in the study and its impact or outcome was evaluated. The search technique used to identify relevant literature for this paper involved input from five experts. While findings from 54 of the 74 papers showed positive outcome or benefits of patient access to their EHRs via patient portals, 10 papers have highlighted concerns, 8 papers have highlighted both and 2 have highlighted absence of negative outcomes. The benefits range from re-assurance, reduced anxiety, positive impact on consultations, better doctor-patient relationship, increased awareness and adherence to medication, and improved patient outcomes (e.g., improving blood pressure and glycemic control in a range of study populations). In addition, patient access to their health information was found to improve self-reported levels of engagement or activation related to self-management, enhanced knowledge, and improve recovery scores, and organizational efficiencies in a tertiary level mental health care facility. However, three studies did not find any statistically significant effect of patient portals on health outcomes. The main concerns have been around security, privacy and confidentiality of the health records, and the anxiety it may cause amongst patients. This literature review identified some benefits, concerns, and attitudes demonstrated by providing patients' access to their own EHRs. This access is often part of government strategies when developing patient-centric self-management elements of a sustainable healthcare system. The findings of this review will give healthcare providers a framework to analyze the benefits offered by promoting patient access to EHRs and decide on the best approach for their own specialties and clinical setup. A robust cost-benefit evaluation of such initiatives along with its impact on major stakeholders within the healthcare system would be essential in understanding the overall impact of such initiatives. Implementation of patient access to their EHRs could help governments to appropriately prioritize the development or adoption of national standards, whilst taking care of local variations and fulfilling the healthcare needs of the population, e.g., UK Government is aiming to make full primary care records available online to every patient. Ultimately, increasing transparency and promoting personal responsibility are key elements of a sustainable healthcare system for future generations.

Impact of PTRIA (Patient Test Result Information Act) on patient follow up management

OBJECTIVE

We aim to study if direct patient notification in accordance with the Patient Test Results Information Act (Act 112) in Pennsylvania leads to decreased loss to follow up and prompt management of actionable imaging findings.

METHODS

For this IRB-approved study, radiology reports were randomly identified using the Nuance mPower™ search engine. The actionable finding group (prior to Act-112) contained 300 patients for which a voice notification was sent by radiologists to alert ordering physicians about significant imaging findings. The PTRIA group (after Act-112) contained 300 patients who were mailed a standardized letter one day after the final report was issued. The electronic medical records were reviewed to evaluate how patients were managed.

RESULTS

There was no difference in loss to follow up rates and time to follow up completion between the two groups. In both groups, 34% of patients were lost to follow up in transition of care from generalists to specialists; 24% cases were lost to follow up when imaging findings were not in the area of the initial ordering provider expertise.

CONCLUSION

The goal of Act 112 is to increase patients' role in the timely management of their significant medical conditions and prevent medical errors, specifically loss to follow up. Our study suggests that presumed patients' awareness does not contribute to improved follow up rates or decreased time to a follow up visit. 13% of patients are lost to follow up in both groups. A tracking system is required to prevent delayed management of the significant findings.

Examination and diagnosis of electronic patient records and their associated ethics: a scoping literature review

Background

Electronic patient record (EPR) technology is a key enabler for improvements to healthcare service and management. To ensure these improvements and the means to achieve them are socially and ethically desirable, careful consideration of the ethical implications of EPRs is indicated. The purpose of this scoping review was to map the literature related to the ethics of EPR technology. The literature review was conducted to catalogue the prevalent ethical terms, to describe the associated ethical challenges and opportunities, and to identify the actors involved. By doing so, it aimed to support the future development of ethics guidance in the EPR domain.

Methods

To identify journal articles debating the ethics of EPRs, Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed academic databases were queried and yielded 123 eligible articles. The following inclusion criteria were applied: articles need to be in the English language; present normative arguments and not solely empirical research; include an abstract for software analysis; and discuss EPR technology.

Results

The medical specialty, type of information captured and stored in EPRs, their use and functionality varied widely across the included articles. Ethical terms extracted were categorised into clusters ‘privacy’, ‘autonomy’, ‘risk/benefit’, ‘human relationships’, and ‘responsibility’. The literature shows that EPR-related ethical concerns can have both positive and negative implications, and that a wide variety of actors with rights and/or responsibilities regarding the safe and ethical adoption of the technology are involved.

Conclusions

While there is considerable consensus in the literature regarding EPR-related ethical principles, some of the associated challenges and opportunities remain underdiscussed. For example, much of the debate is presented in a manner more in keeping with a traditional model of healthcare and fails to take account of the multidimensional ensemble of factors at play in the EPR era and the consequent need to redefine/modify ethical norms to align with a digitally-enabled health service. Similarly, the academic discussion focuses predominantly on bioethical values. However, approaches from digital ethics may also be helpful to identify and deliberate about current and emerging EPR-related ethical concerns.

Use of an Online Crowdsourcing Platform to Assess Patient Comprehension of Radiology Reports and Colloquialisms

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to use an online crowdsourcing platform to assess patient comprehension of five radiology reporting templates and radiology colloquialisms. MATERIALS AND METHODS. In this cross-sectional study, participants were surveyed as patient surrogates using a crowdsourcing platform. Two tasks were completed within two 48-hour time periods. For the first crowdsourcing task, each participant was randomly assigned a set of radiology reports in a constructed reporting template and subsequently tested for comprehension. For the second crowdsourcing task, each participant was randomly assigned a radiology colloquialism and asked to indicate whether the phrase indicated a normal, abnormal, or ambivalent finding. RESULTS. A total of 203 participants enrolled for the first task and 1166 for the second within 48 hours of task publication. The payment totaled $31.96. Of 812 radiology reports read, 384 (47%) were correctly interpreted by the patient surrogates. Patient surrogates had higher rates of comprehension of reports written in the patient summary (57%, p < 0.001) and traditional unstructured in combination with patient summary (51%, p = 0.004) formats than in the traditional unstructured format (40%). Most of the patient surrogates (114/203 [56%]) expressed a preference for receiving a full radiology report via an electronic patient portal. Several radiology colloquialisms with modifiers such as "low," "underdistended," and "decompressed" had low rates of comprehension. CONCLUSION. Use of the crowdsourcing platform is an expeditious, cost-effective, and customizable tool for surveying laypeople in sentiment- or task-based research. Patient summaries can help increase patient comprehension of radiology reports. Radiology colloquialisms are likely to be misunderstood by patients.

Optimizing Radiology Reports for Patients and Referring Physicians: Mitigating the Curse of Knowledge

As the movement for increased transparency in healthcare continues, more and more patients are accessing their imaging reports via patient portals. The shift to structured radiology reports has increased report clarity for referring providers and is supported by most radiologists. When radiologists address the clinical question that was posed, avoid the use of abbreviations, and create a report impression that is as simple as possible, we provide real added value via effective communication through our reports. In creating our reports with the patient in mind, and specifically knowing that many patients now directly review their imaging reports, we must be cognizant of the "curse of knowledge." The curse of knowledge is a cognitive bias that exists when we assume others have the background to understand our often complex radiology reports. Striving to mitigate the curse of knowledge is important for both patients and referring providers reading our reports, and a report impression that is presented as simply as possible in "lay language" is one tangible step toward this goal. Educating our residents and fellows about these important considerations as they create their reports is imperative to their success as radiologists.

Effect of a Report Template-Enabled Quality Improvement Initiative on Use of Preferred Phrases for Communicating Normal Findings in Structured Abdominal CT and MRI Reports

OBJECTIVE. The objective of this study was to assess impact of a report template quality improvement (QI) initiative on use of preferred phrases for communicating normal findings in structured abdominal CT and MRI reports. SUBJECTS AND METHODS. This prospective QI initiative, designed to decrease use of equivocal phrases and increase use of preferred and acceptable phrases (defined by multidisciplinary experts including patient advocates) in radiology reports, was performed in an academic medical center with over 800,000 annual radiologic examinations and was exempt from institutional review board approval. The intervention populated the preferred term "normal" (default) and acceptable specified pertinent negative phrases (pick-list option) when describing abdominal organ subheadings (liver, pancreas, spleen, adrenal glands, kidneys) within the "Findings" heading of abdominal CT and MRI report templates. We tabulated frequencies of the term "normal", specified pertinent negatives, and equivocal phrases in 21,629 reports before (June 1, 2017, to February 28, 2018) and 23,051 reports after (April 1, 2018, to December 31, 2018) the intervention using natural language processing and recorded trainee participation in report generation. We assessed intervention impact using statistical process control (SPC) charts and the Fisher exact test. RESULTS. Equivocal phrases were used less frequently in abdominal CT and MRI reports for both attending radiologists and trainees after the intervention (p < 0.05, SPC). Use of the term "normal" increased for reports generated by attending radiologists alone but decreased for reports created with trainee participation (p < 0.05, SPC). Frequency of pertinent negatives increased for reports with trainee participation (p < 0.05, SPC). CONCLUSION. A QI intervention decreased use of equivocal terms and increased use of preferred and acceptable phrases when communicating normal findings in abdominal CT and MRI reports.

What are the benefits and risks of sharing patients' diagnostic radiological images with them? A cross-sectional study of the perceptions of patients and clinicians in the UK

OBJECTIVES

The objective for this work was to assess clinical experts' and patients' opinions on the benefits and risks of sharing patients' diagnostic radiological images with them.

SETTING

This study was conducted outside of the primary and secondary care settings. Clinical experts were recruited at a UK national imaging and oncology conference, and patients were recruited via social media.

PARTICIPANTS

121 clinical experts and 282 patients completed the study. A further 73 patient and 10 clinical expert responses were discounted due to item non-response. Individuals were required to be a minimum of 18 years of age at the time of participation.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

This study was exploratory in nature. As such, the outcomes to be measured for demonstration of the successful completion of this study were generated organically through the process of the investigation itself. These were: (1) the delineation of the benefits available from, and the risks posed by, widening access to diagnostic radiological images; (2) establishment of the level and nature of demand for access to diagnostic radiological images; and (3) the identification of stakeholder requirements for accessing available benefit from diagnostic radiological images.

RESULTS

403 usable questionnaires were returned consisting of responses from clinical experts (n=121) and patients (n=282). Both groups acknowledge the potential benefits of this practice. Examples included facilitating communication, promoting patient engagement and supporting patients in accepting health information shared with them. However, both groups also recognised risks associated with image sharing, such as the potential for patients to be upset or confused by their images.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a demand from patients for access to their diagnostic radiological images alongside acknowledgement from clinical experts that there may be benefits available from this. However, due to the acknowledged risks, there is also a need to carefully manage this interaction.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

187752.

Customer Service in Radiology: Satisfying Your Patients and Referrers

Radiology has long been a service-oriented specialty. Although physicians in other specialties have direct interactions with patients, radiologists' interactions with patients are often indirect, most often occurring as a direct result of another provider's order. As such, radiology practices have had to focus on two distinct groups, patients and ordering providers, to grow their businesses and retain their patients. One could argue that during the past 2 decades, many of the most visible customer service initiatives in radiology practices have been directed toward the ordering provider. These initiatives have included implementing picture archiving and communication systems to improve image distribution and availability, voice dictation systems to decrease report turnaround time, computerized order entry to ease the ordering process, and structured reporting to improve the readability of the radiology report. As the practice of radiology is evolving to become more patient oriented, it is clear that the specialty needs to pivot and implement more initiatives that directly benefit patients. In this article, the concepts of customer service and a radiology department's primary customer are defined and discussed, and the concept of service quality is introduced. In addition, the author highlights the five dimensions of service quality: reliability, assurance, tangibles, empathy, and responsiveness. Each dimension is described in detail, first by using an archetypal business example and then by using an example of a project that has been successfully implemented in the author's radiology department. ^©RSNA, 2018.

Patient, family and provider experiences with transfers from intensive care unit to hospital ward: a multicentre qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Transfer of patient care from an intensive care unit (ICU) to a hospital ward is often challenging, high risk and inefficient. We assessed patient and provider perspectives on barriers and facilitators to high-quality transfers and recommendations to improve the transfer process.

METHODS

We conducted semistructured interviews of participants from a multicentre prospective cohort study of ICU transfers conducted at 10 hospitals across Canada. We purposively sampled 1 patient, 1 family member of a patient, 1 ICU provider, and 1 ward provider at each of the 8 English-speaking sites. Qualitative content analysis was used to derive themes, subthemes and recommendations.

RESULTS

The 35 participants described 3 interrelated, overarching themes perceived as barriers or facilitators to high-quality patient transfers: resource availability, communication and institutional culture. Common recommendations suggested to improve ICU transfers included implementing standardized communication tools that streamline provider-provider and provider-patient communication, using multimodal communication to facilitate timely, accurate, durable and mutually reinforcing information transfer; and developing procedures to manage delays in transfer to ensure continuity of care for patients in the ICU waiting for a hospital ward bed.

INTERPRETATION

Patient and provider perspectives attribute breakdown of ICU-to-ward transfers of care to resource availability, communication and institutional culture. Patients and providers recommend standardized, multimodal communication and transfer procedures to improve quality of care.