When the Reading Room Meets the Team Room: Resident Perspectives From Radiology and Internal Medicine on the Effect of Personal Communication After Implementing a Resident-Led Radiology Rounds

Assessing the impact of structured reporting on learning how to report lung cancer staging CT: A triple cohort study on inexperienced readers

PURPOSE

To assess the clinical utility of chest computed tomography (CT) reports for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) staging generated by inexperienced readers using structured reporting (SR) templates from the Royal College of Radiologists (RCR-SR) and the Italian Society of Medical and Interventional Radiology (SIRM-SR), compared to traditional non-systematic reports (NSR).

METHODS

In a cohort of 30 NSCLC patients, six third-year radiology residents reported CT examinations in two 2-month-apart separate sessions using NSR in the first and NSR, RCR-SR, or SIRM-SR in the second. Couples of expert radiologists and thoracic oncologists in consensus evaluated completeness, accuracy, and clarity. All the quality indicators were expressed on a 100-point scale. The Wilcoxon signed ranks, and Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney tests were used for statistical analyses.

RESULTS

Results showed significantly higher completeness for RCR-SR (90 %) and SIRM-SR (100 %) compared to NSR (70 %) in the second session (all p < 0.001). SIRM-SR demonstrated superior accuracy (70 % vs. 55 %, p < 0.001) over NSR, while RCR-SR and NSR accuracy did not significantly differ (60 % vs. 62.5 %, p = 0.06). In the second session, RCR-SR and SIRM-SR surpassed NSR in completeness, accuracy, and clarity (all p < 0.001, except p = 0.04 for accuracy between RCR-SR and NSR). SIRM-SR outperformed RCR-SR in completeness (100 % vs. 90 %, p < 0.001) and accuracy (70 % vs. 62.5 %, p = 0.002), with equivalent clarity (90 % for both, p = 0.27).

CONCLUSIONS

Inexperienced readers using RCR-SR and SIRM-SR demonstrated high-quality reporting, indicating their potential in radiology residency programs to enhance reporting skills for NSCLC staging and effective interaction with all the physicians involved in managing NSCLC patients.

Performance and Agreement When Annotating Chest X-ray Text Reports—A Preliminary Step in the Development of a Deep Learning-Based Prioritization and Detection System

A chest X-ray report is a communicative tool and can be used as data for developing artificial intelligence-based decision support systems. For both, consistent understanding and labeling is important. Our aim was to investigate how readers would comprehend and annotate 200 chest X-ray reports. Reports written between 1 January 2015 and 11 March 2022 were selected based on search words. Annotators included three board-certified radiologists, two trained radiologists (physicians), two radiographers (radiological technicians), a non-radiological physician, and a medical student. Consensus labels by two or more of the experienced radiologists were considered “gold standard”. Matthew’s correlation coefficient (MCC) was calculated to assess annotation performance, and descriptive statistics were used to assess agreement between individual annotators and labels. The intermediate radiologist had the best correlation to “gold standard” (MCC 0.77). This was followed by the novice radiologist and medical student (MCC 0.71 for both), the novice radiographer (MCC 0.65), non-radiological physician (MCC 0.64), and experienced radiographer (MCC 0.57). Our findings showed that for developing an artificial intelligence-based support system, if trained radiologists are not available, annotations from non-radiological annotators with basic and general knowledge may be more aligned with radiologists compared to annotations from sub-specialized medical staff, if their sub-specialization is outside of diagnostic radiology.

Intraprofessional workplace learning in postgraduate medical education: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Residents need to be trained across the boundaries of their own specialty to prepare them for collaborative practice. Intraprofessional learning (i.e. between individuals of different disciplines within the same profession) has received little attention in the postgraduate medical education literature, in contrast to the extensive literature on interprofessional learning between individuals of different professions. To address this gap, we performed a scoping review to investigate what and how residents learn from workplace-related intraprofessional activities, and what factors influence learning.

METHODS

The PRISMA guidelines were used to conduct a scoping review of empirical studies on intraprofessional workplace learning in postgraduate medical education published between 1 January 2000 to 16 April 2020 in Pubmed, Embase, PsycINFO, ERIC and Web of Science. This study applied 'best fit' framework-based synthesis to map the existing evidence, using the presage-process-product (3P) model developed by Tynjälä (2013).

RESULTS

Four thousand three hundred thirty records were screened, and 37 articles were included. This review identified influencing (presage) factors that derived from the sociocultural environment, learner and learning context. Studies described that complexity of care can both facilitate and hinder learning. Furthermore, intraprofessional learning is threatened by professional stereotyping and negative perceptions, and awareness of learning opportunities and explicit reflection are critical in intraprofessional workplace learning. Studies described a range of informal and formal intraprofessional activities (process) under the headings of collaboration in clinical practice, rotations or placements, formal educational sessions and simulated workplace training. In general, learners responded well and their attitudes and perceptions improved, learners reported increased knowledge and skills and positive behavioural changes (product). Learning outcomes were reported in the domains of patient-centred care, collaborative attitudes and respect, mutual knowledge and understanding, collaborative decision making, communication, leadership, teamwork and reflexivity.

CONCLUSIONS

This review gives insight into the high learning potential of intraprofessional activities. Many of the included studies relied on self-reported perceptions of change, therefore, future research should focus on generating more robust evidence including objectively examined outcome measures. This review offers a comprehensive overview of the factors that influence intraprofessional workplace learning in postgraduate medical education. Finally, we provide recommendations for enhancing intraprofessional learning in clinical practice.

Survey of radiologists and emergency department providers after implementation of a global radiology report categorization system

PURPOSE

Breakdown in communication of important imaging results threatens patient safety and risks malpractice claims. To facilitate closed-loop communication, our institution developed a unique radiology report categorization (RADCAT) system employing automated alert notification systems. This study aimed to understand users' initial experiences with the RADCAT system and obtain feedback.

METHODS

Web-based surveys were distributed to radiologists and emergency department (ED) providers at our hospital system within 1 year of institution-wide RADCAT implementation. Survey designs differed based on clinical setting. Most prompts utilized declarative statements with 5-point agreement Likert scales. Closed-response data was analyzed with descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Response rates among radiologists and ED providers were 59.4% (63/106) and 38.4% (69/211), respectively. 78.0% (46/59) of radiologists and 60.9% (42/69) of ED providers agreed that RADCAT improves patient care. Of radiologists, 84.1% (53/63) agreed that RADCAT design is intuitive, and 57.6% (34/59) agreed that RADCAT improves efficiency. Of ED providers, 69.6% (48/69) agreed that RADCAT appropriately differentiates urgent and non-urgent findings, and 65.2% (45/69) agreed that auto-population of discharge documents with imaging results containing follow-up recommendations protects them from liability. Only 35.6% (21/59) of radiologists and 21.7% (15/69) of ED providers agreed that RADCAT implementation decreased reading room visits by ordering providers. Open-response feedback showed that some ED providers find RADCAT too complex while some radiologists desire improved transparency regarding imaging study communication status.

CONCLUSION

Since its implementation, RADCAT has been well received among radiologists and ED providers with agreement that it improves patient care and effectively distinguishes and communicates important imaging findings.