Transmission of nonemergent critical findings: communication versus consultation

Difficulties and possibilities in communication between referring clinicians and radiologists: perspective of clinicians

Purpose

To investigate modes and quality of interprofessional communication between clinicians and radiologists, and to identify difficulties and possibilities in this context, as experienced by referring clinicians.

Patients and methods

Focus group interviews with 22 clinicians from different specialties were carried out. The leading question was: "How do you experience communication, verbal and nonverbal, between referring clinicians and radiologists?" Content analysis was used for interpretation of data.

Results

Overall, referring clinicians expressed satisfaction with their interprofessional communication with radiologists, and digital access to image data was highly appreciated. However, increased reliance on digital communication has led to reduced face-to-face contacts between clinicians and radiologists. This seems to constitute a potential threat to bilateral feedback, joint educational opportunities, and interprofessional development. Cumbersome medical information software systems, time constraints, shortage of staff, reliance on teleradiology, and lack of uniform format of radiology reports were mentioned as problematic. Further implementation of structured reporting was considered beneficial.

Conclusion

Deepened face-to-face contacts between clinicians and radiologists were considered prerequisites for mutual understanding, deepened competence and mutual trust; a key factor in interprofessional communication. Clinicians and radiologists should come together in order to secure bilateral feedback and obtain deepened knowledge of the specific needs of subspecialized clinicians.

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

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to determine the preferences of radiology and referring provider residents regarding direct communication of radiology test results.

METHODS

This Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant quality improvement effort was exempt from institutional review board oversight. An anonymous survey was emailed to 44 radiology residents and 364 referring resident providers who routinely provide or receive direct communication of test results at our quaternary care medical center. The survey focused on the frequency, indication, clinical utility, and methods of direct communication of radiology results. Proportions were compared to chi-square or Fisher exact test.

RESULTS

The response rates were 86% (37 of 43) (radiology) and 41% (151 of 364) (referring providers). Approximately half of radiology residents (49% [18 of 37]) thought the frequency of direct verbal communication was excessive, and none (0 of 37) thought more communication was needed. In contrast, only 1.3% (2 of 151; P < .001) of referring providers felt the frequency was excessive, and 24% (36 of 151; P < .001) desired more. The majority (66% [100 of 151]) of referring providers felt phone calls from radiologists often or always added value beyond a timely radiology report, and 59% (44 of 74) felt it is the radiologist's responsibility to call about abnormal findings. Furthermore, 83% (125 of 151) of referring providers preferred to receive a phone call about non-emergent unexpected findings, although preferences varied for various example abnormalities. For outpatients with non-emergent unexpected findings, most providers (90% [64 of 71]) prefer written communication rather than a phone call.

CONCLUSIONS

Referring providers prefer direct communication of radiology results, even for non-urgent unexpected findings, whereas radiology residents prefer less direct communication and are more likely to consider radiologist-to-provider communication superfluous.

Reflective Writing: A Potential Tool to Improve Interprofessional Teamwork with Radiologists

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Studies show that problems with interprofessional collaboration can result in adverse patient outcomes. These problems are common in the field of radiology, where technology has decreased opportunities for direct communication and collaboration with referring physicians. To our knowledge, critical reflection has not been studied as an intervention to better understand one's own and/or others' roles in the context of an interprofessional team, or more specifically, to improve interprofessional collaboration between radiologists and other physicians.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We trialed a reflective journaling assignment in our fourth year medical student general radiology elective. Student journal content was scored by percentage of comments reflecting on elective experiences versus recounting events. Content was categorized as "reflection" using an established measurement tool. Reflective content was evaluated to identify common themes.

RESULTS

A total of 31 journals (178 entries and 26,749 words) were analyzed. Reflective content accounted for 43% of overall content and was subdivided into three categories: insight into one's own role and responsibilities as an ordering physician (20%), insight into a radiologist's role and responsibilities (12%), and thoughts on improving interprofessional collaboration with radiologists (11%).

CONCLUSIONS

Reflective writing allows students to explore their own role and responsibilities in the context of an interprofessional team and may improve interprofessional teamwork with radiologists.

An evaluation of the impact of clinically embedded reading rooms on radiologist-referring clinician communication

The aim of this study was to investigate whether locating reading rooms in clinical areas at a large tertiary care, academic hospital in the United States corresponds with increased rates of direct communication between radiologists and clinicians. Data recorded included the frequency, form, duration, and general purpose of communications. Two-tailed Fisher's exact tests were used to determine the statistical significance of differences between the frequencies of communication methods for the reading rooms included in the study. During the observation period, there were a total of 175 episodes of communication between radiologists and referring providers in the 4 study reading rooms. There was a highly significant difference (P < .0001) in the percentage of visits and critical test result management messages sent between embedded and nonembedded reading rooms, while the differences in the proportion of calls both to and from referring providers was not significant (P = .4468). Although the purpose of this study was to assess the impact of reading room location on radiologists' communications with referring providers, several alternative hypotheses could also explain the results. The value of this study emerges from the documentation of the high degree of variability among institutions in communication practices among different kinds of radiologists and referring physicians. The extent of these different practices among the 4 reading rooms has important implications for future studies of communication patterns between radiologists and referring providers as well as for designing effective interventions to enhance the role of radiologists as consultants.