Patient-centered radiology: a roadmap for outpatient imaging

Creating a patient-centered experience is becoming increasingly important for radiology departments around the world. The goal of patient-centered radiology is to ensure that radiology services are sensitive to patients' needs and desires. This article provides a framework for addressing the patient's experience by dividing their imaging journey into three distinct time periods: pre-exam, day of exam, and post-exam. Each time period has aspects that can contribute to patient anxiety. Although there are components of the patient journey that are common in all regions of the world, there are also unique features that vary by location. This paper highlights innovative solutions from different parts of the world that have been introduced in each of these time periods to create a more patient-centered experience. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Adopting innovative solutions that help patients understand their imaging journey and decrease their anxiety about undergoing an imaging examination are important steps in creating a patient centered imaging experience. KEY POINTS: • Patients often experience anxiety during their imaging journey and decreasing this anxiety is an important component of patient centered imaging. • The patient imaging journey can be divided into three distinct time periods: pre-exam, day of exam, and post-exam. • Although components of the imaging journey are common, there are local differences in different regions of the world that need to be considered when constructing a patient centered experience.

The importance and future of prostate MRI report templates: improving oncological care

The radiologist's report is crucial for guiding care post-imaging, with ongoing advancements in report construction. Recent studies across various modalities and organ systems demonstrate enhanced clarity and communication through structured reports. This article will explain the benefits of disease-state specific reporting templates using prostate MRI as the model system. We identify key reporting components for prostate cancer detection and staging as well as imaging in active surveillance and following therapy. We discuss relevant reporting systems including PI-QUAL, PI-RADS, PRECISE, PI-RR and PI-FAB systems. Additionally, we examine optimal reporting structure including disruptive technologies such as graphical reporting and using artificial intelligence to improve report clarity and applicability.

Assessing the effectiveness of artificial intelligence (AI) in prioritising CT head interpretation: study protocol for a stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial (ACCEPT-AI)

INTRODUCTION

Diagnostic imaging is vital in emergency departments (EDs). Accessibility and reporting impacts ED workflow and patient care. With radiology workforce shortages, reporting capacity is limited, leading to image interpretation delays. Turnaround times for image reporting are an ED bottleneck. Artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms can improve productivity, efficiency and accuracy in diagnostic radiology, contingent on their clinical efficacy. This includes positively impacting patient care and improving clinical workflow. The ACCEPT-AI study will evaluate Qure.ai's qER software in identifying and prioritising patients with critical findings from AI analysis of non-contrast head CT (NCCT) scans.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a multicentre trial, spanning four diverse sites, over 13 months. It will include all individuals above the age of 18 years who present to the ED, referred for an NCCT. The project will be divided into three consecutive phases (pre-implementation, implementation and post-implementation of the qER solution) in a stepped-wedge design to control for adoption bias and adjust for time-based changes in the background patient characteristics. Pre-implementation involves baseline data for standard care to support the primary and secondary outcomes. The implementation phase includes staff training and qER solution threshold adjustments in detecting target abnormalities adjusted, if necessary. The post-implementation phase will introduce a notification (prioritised flag) in the radiology information system. The radiologist can choose to agree with the qER findings or ignore it according to their clinical judgement before writing and signing off the report. Non-qER processed scans will be handled as per standard care.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study will be conducted in accordance with the principles of Good Clinical Practice. The protocol was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of East Midlands (Leicester Central), in May 2023 (REC (Research Ethics Committee) 23/EM/0108). Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and disseminated in scientific findings (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT06027411) TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT06027411.

Summary of the 2022 ACR Intersociety Meeting

The ACR Intersociety Committee meeting of 2022 (ISC-2022) was convened around the theme of "Recovering From The Great Resignation, Moral Injury and Other Stressors: Rebuilding Radiology for a Robust Future." Representatives from 29 radiology organizations, including all radiology subspecialties, radiation oncology, and medical physics, as well as academic and private practice radiologists, met for 3 days in early August in Park City, Utah, to search for solutions to the most pressing problems facing the specialty of radiology in 2022. Of these, the mismatch between the clinical workload and the available radiologist workforce was foremost-as many other identifiable problems flowed downstream from this, including high job turnover, lack of time for teaching and research, radiologist burnout, and moral injury.

Assessing the implementation of COVID-19 structured reporting templates for chest radiography: a scoping review

Objective

One of the common modalities used in imaging COVID-19 positive patients is chest radiography (CXR), and serves as a valuable imaging method to diagnose and monitor a patients' condition. Structured reporting templates are regularly used for the assessment of COVID-19 CXRs and are supported by international radiological societies. This review has investigated the use of structured templates for reporting COVID-19 CXRs.

Methods

A scoping review was conducted on literature published between 2020 and 2022 using Medline, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and manual searches. An essential criterion for the inclusion of the articles was the use of reporting methods employing either a structured quantitative or qualitative reporting method. Thematic analyses of both reporting designs were then undertaken to evaluate utility and implementation.

Results

Fifty articles were found with the quantitative reporting method used in 47 articles whilst 3 articles were found employing a qualitative design. Two quantitative reporting tools (Brixia and RALE) were used in 33 studies, with other studies using variations of these methods. Brixia and RALE both use a posteroanterior or supine CXR divided into sections, Brixia with six and RALE with four sections. Each section is scaled numerically depending on the level of infection. The qualitative templates relied on selecting the best descriptor of the presence of COVID-19 radiological appearances. Grey literature from 10 international professional radiology societies were also included in this review. The majority of the radiology societies recommend a qualitative template for reporting COVID-19 CXRs.

Conclusion

Most studies employed quantitative reporting methods which contrasted with the structured qualitative reporting template advocated by most radiological societies. The reasons for this are not entirely clear. There is also a lack of research literature on both the implementation of the templates or comparing both template types, indicating that the use of structured radiology reporting types may be an underdeveloped clinical strategy and research methodology.

Advances in knowledge

This scoping review is unique in that it has undertaken an examination of the utility of the quantitative and qualitative structured reporting templates for COVID-19 CXRs. Moreover, through this review, the material examined has allowed a comparison of both instruments, clearly showing the favoured style of structured reporting by clinicians. At the time of the database interrogation, there were no studies found had undertaken such examinations of both reporting instruments. Moreover, due to the enduring influence of COVID-19 on global health, this scoping review is timely in examining the most innovative structured reporting tools that could be used in the reporting of COVID-19 CXRs. This report could assist clinicians in decision-making regarding templated COVID-19 reports.

Compliance With the Royal College of Radiologists Guideline for Actionable Reporting and Its Impact on Patient Care: A Retrospective Analysis of Reporting Practices From a Major Trauma Center

Introduction Prompt diagnosis forms the mainstay of management of any patient arriving at the hospital. In developed settings, apart from clinical assessment, imaging in the form of computed tomography (CT) scan plays a vital role in arriving at the patient diagnosis. The reporting should follow pre-defined Royal College of Radiologists (RCR) standards to improve the quality of the diagnostic process. Objectives To identify the compliance of reporting as per the RCR standards for the communication of radiological reports and fail-safe alert notification. Materials and methods A retrospective review of body CT scans was done in two cycles within a span of three months. A total of 100 randomized scans were assessed in each cycle, both from the A&E (accident and emergency) and inpatients. Normal scans and outpatient scans were excluded from the study. Data were collected using the online portal (CRIS) and statistical analysis was performed. Results After the first cycle of the audit, 95 reports out of 100 met the standard RCR criteria. After the second cycle, 97 reports met the criteria of the audit. One inpatient scan and two A&E reports did not meet the specified criteria in the second cycle. Conclusion After the two cycles of the audit carried out over three months, we were able to achieve almost 97% of reporting standards as compared to 95% obtained previously through a quality improvement project and create awareness.

Patient-centered Care and Integrated Practice Units: Embracing the Breast Care Continuum

Patient-centered care is a health care approach optimized for the needs of the patient. As patients have sought more autonomy in recent years, this model has been more frequently adopted. Breast radiologists aspiring to advance patient-centered care should seek greater ownership of the breast diagnostic imaging and intervention workflows, helping their patients navigate the complex breast care landscape with patients' preferences taken into account. Applying this approach to breast radiology will increase patient satisfaction and compliance while also limiting wasted health care dollars, unnecessary diagnostic delays, and overall confusion. Herein, the benefits of patient-centered breast radiology are discussed, and numerous suggestions and case examples are provided to help readers reshape their practice toward the priorities of their patients.

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.

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.

Radiographers' actions and challenges when confronted with inappropriate radiology referrals

OBJECTIVES

To explore radiographers' actions toward inappropriate referrals and hindrances to assessing referrals.

METHODS

An online survey was distributed to radiographers via the International Society of Radiographers and Radiological Technologists (ISRRT) networks. The questionnaire consisted of 5-point Likert scale questions on radiographers' actions to supplement referral information, actions for unjustified referrals and hindrances to referral assessment. The questionnaire was validated using a test-retest reliability analysis. Kappa values ≥ 0.6 were accepted. SPSS software was used for data analysis and chi-square tests to compare subgroups.

RESULTS

Total responses received were 279. The most reported actions to supplement missing referral information were to ask the patient or relative, examine the body region of concern and check medical records (73%, 70%, 67%, responded often/always, respectively). The actions when confronted with unjustified referrals were reported equally to consult the radiologist, referring clinician and radiographer (69-68% often/always responses). The hindering factors ranked high (agreed/strongly agreed responses) pertained to inadequate information in referral forms (83%), ineffective communication among healthcare professionals (79%), lack of training (70%) and allocated time (61%). Statistically significant associations were observed for a few actions and hindrances with education level, modality of practice and responsibility to screen imaging referrals.

CONCLUSION

Radiographers consult colleagues about suspected unjustified referrals. Effective communication pathways, training and time allocation to improve radiographers' skills to assess referrals may enhance appropriate imaging and delivery of quality patient care.

KEY POINTS

• Radiographers' actions of supplementing missing information in radiology referrals facilitate provision of high-quality health services. • Radiographers' strategy when confronted with inappropriate referrals is to consult radiologists and referring clinicians. • Better inter-professional communication and organisation of tasks can facilitate radiographers' participation in referral assessment to ensure appropriate imaging.

Objective comparison of errors and report length between structured and freeform abdominopelvic computed tomography reports

PURPOSE

To objectively compare structured and freeform abdominopelvic CT reports based on the number and types of errors as well as report length.

METHODS

90 structured and 89 freeform reports from abdominopelvic CT scans with IV contrast obtained for the indication of abdominal pain were randomly selected for review. Each report was reviewed for errors, which were counted and categorized based on the type of error. The total number of words in each report was tallied.

RESULTS

105 total errors were found in the structured reports, compared to 157 total errors in freeform reports. There were 1.16 errors per structured report and 1.76 errors per freeform report (p < 0.001). 48% of structured reports contained at least one error, while 71% of freeform reports contained at least one error (p = 0.002). When a difference existed between the styles with regard to error categories, more errors were observed in freeform reports, with the exception of the duplicated period error where structured reports had more errors. No difference on the basis of average words per report existed, with 219.2 words per report for each reporting style.

CONCLUSION

The use of structured reporting for abdominopelvic CT results in less errors in the report when compared to freeform reporting, potentially reducing clinically significant adverse outcomes in patient care. The report length on the basis of number of words per report is not different between the two reporting styles.