How We Do It: Creating Consistent Structure and Content in Abdominal Radiology Report Templates

Radiology Reporting Preferences: What Do Referring Clinicians Want?

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

To investigate and discern if preferences and expectations regarding the stylistics of the radiology report varied across roles, specialties, and practice location amongst referring providers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 579 referring clinicians were invited to complete our survey electronically and were asked to identify themselves as either physicians or advanced practice providers (APPs), specify their specialty, and primary practice environment. They were asked to rank the three reports on appearance, formatting, level of detail, and overall preference, with additional queries about their preferences regarding literature citation inclusions and placement of dose reduction statements.

RESULTS

477 surveys were completed and returned for analysis, resulting in an 82.2% response rate. The most preferred reporting style was the blended report (62.5%), followed by the narrative report (18.9%) and the highly templated report (18.7%), respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in the most preferred reporting style between provider types (F(1, 475) = [0.69], p = 0.4067), between different practice settings (F(2, 474) = [2.32], p = 0.0995), and between different medical specialties (F(5, 471) = [2.23], p = 0.051). Among the three report styles, blended reporting received the highest satisfaction scores overall. The highly templated report was rated lowest for appearance and detail, while narrative reports received moderate satisfaction scores for appearance and detail. A majority favored inclusion of literature citations and similarly, the placement of dose-optimization statements at the end of the report. Preferences were consistent across specialties and practice settings.

CONCLUSION

This survey highlights that a majority of clinicians across a variety of specialties prefer a mix of structured reporting with narrative elements. The standardization of required metrics included in the radiology report may have far-reaching consequences for future reimbursement.

Investigating the impact of structured reporting on the linguistic standardization of radiology reports through natural language processing over a 10-year period

OBJECTIVES

To investigate how a transition from free text to structured reporting affects reporting language with regard to standardization and distinguishability.

METHODS

A total of 747,393 radiology reports dictated between January 2011 and June 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. The body and cardiothoracic imaging divisions introduced a reporting concept using standardized language and structured reporting templates in January 2016. Reports were segmented by a natural language processing algorithm and converted into a 20-dimension document vector. For analysis, dimensionality was reduced to a 2D visualization with t-distributed stochastic neighbor embedding and matched with metadata. Linguistic standardization was assessed by comparing distinct report types' vector spreads (e.g., run-off MR angiography) between reporting standards. Changes in report type distinguishability (e.g., CT abdomen/pelvis vs. MR abdomen) were measured by comparing the distance between their centroids.

RESULTS

Structured reports showed lower document vector spread (thus higher linguistic similarity) compared with free-text reports overall (21.9 [free-text] vs. 15.9 [structured]; - 27.4%; p < 0.001) and for most report types, e.g., run-off MR angiography (15.2 vs. 1.8; - 88.2%; p < 0.001) or double-rule-out CT (26.8 vs. 10.0; - 62.7%; p < 0.001). No changes were observed for reports continued to be written in free text, e.g., CT head reports (33.2 vs. 33.1; - 0.3%; p = 1). Distances between the report types' centroids increased with structured reporting (thus better linguistic distinguishability) overall (27.3 vs. 54.4; + 99.3 ± 98.4%) and for specific report types, e.g., CT abdomen/pelvis vs. MR abdomen (13.7 vs. 37.2; + 171.5%).

CONCLUSION

Structured reporting and the use of factual language yield more homogenous and standardized radiology reports on a linguistic level, tailored to specific reporting scenarios and imaging studies.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Information transmission to referring physicians, as well as automated report assessment and content extraction in big data analyses, may benefit from standardized reporting, due to consistent report organization and terminology used for pathologies and normal findings.

KEY POINTS

• Natural language processing and t-distributed stochastic neighbor embedding can transform radiology reports into numeric vectors, allowing the quantification of their linguistic standardization. • Structured reporting substantially increases reports' linguistic standardization (mean: - 27.4% in vector spread) and distinguishability (mean: + 99.3 ± 98.4% increase in vector distance) compared with free-text reports. • Higher standardization and homogeneity outline potential benefits of structured reporting for information transmission and big data analyses.

Future directions in imaging pouches

The sections of this special issue on the ileal pouch demonstrate that in the nearly 45 years since the ileal pouch has been utilized to treat patients with colitis and familial adenomatous polyposis, a substantial number of patients experience both short- and long-term morbidity and that imaging plays an important role in their management. Further, referral centers are encountering an increasing number of patients with pouch and peri-pouch complications and dysfunction. Many of these patients have had their pouches for years, and many have experienced a reduced quality of life as a result of their symptoms.As we look to the future, what are the specific questions that arise from this compilation of experience from institutions that see large numbers of patients with an ileal pouch? In what areas are we deficient? In what areas are we using the wrong methods? What should we be doing differently?

Structured versus non-structured reporting of pelvic MRI for ileal pouch evaluation: clarity and effectiveness

PURPOSE

Given that ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) surgery is a technically challenging and high-morbidity procedure, there are numerous pertinent imaging findings that need to be clearly and efficiently communicated to the IBD surgeons for essential patient management and surgical planning. Structured reporting has been increasingly used over the past decade throughout various radiology subspecialties to improve reporting clarity and completeness. We compare structured versus non-structured reporting of pelvic MRI for ileal pouch to evaluate for clarity and effectiveness.

METHODS

164 consecutive pelvic MRI's for ileal pouch evaluation, excluding subsequent exams for the same patient, acquired between 1/1/2019 and 7/31/2021 at one institution were included, before and after implementation (11/15/2020) of a structured reporting template, which was created with institutional IBD surgeons. Reports were assessed for the presence of 18 key features required for complete ileal pouch assessment: anastomosis (IPAA, tip of J, pouch body), cuff (length, cuffitis), pouch body (size, pouchitis, stricture), pouch inlet/pre-pouch ileum (stricture, inflammation, sharp angulation), pouch outlet (stricture), peripouch mesentery (position, mesentery twist), pelvic abscess, peri-anal fistula, pelvic lymph nodes, and skeletal abnormalities. Subgroup analysis was performed based on reader experience and divided into three categories: experienced (n = 2), other intra-institutional (n = 20), or affiliate site (n = 6).

RESULTS

57 (35%) structured and 107 (65%) non-structured pelvic MRI reports were reviewed. Structured reports contained 16.6 [SD:4.0] key features whereas non-structured reports contained 6.3 [SD:2.5] key features (p < .001). The largest improvement following template implementation was for reporting sharp angulation of the pouch inlet (91.2% vs. 0.9%, p < .001), tip of J suture line and pouch body anastomosis (both improved to 91.2% from 3.7%). Structured versus non-structured reports contained mean 17.7 versus 9.1 key features for experienced readers, 17.0 versus 5.9 for other intra-institutional readers, and 8.7 versus 5.3 for affiliate site readers.

CONCLUSION

Structured reporting of pelvic MRI guides a systematic search pattern and comprehensive evaluation of ileal pouches, and therefore facilitates surgical planning and clinical management. This standardized reporting template can serve as baseline at other institutions for adaptation based on specific radiology and surgery preferences, fostering a collaborative environment between radiology and surgery, and ultimately improving patient care.

State of the art in abdominal MRI structured reporting: a review

In the management of several abdominal disorders, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has the potential to significantly improve patient's outcome due to its diagnostic accuracy leading to more appropriate treatment choice. However, its clinical value heavily relies on the quality and quantity of diagnostic information that radiologists manage to convey through their reports. To solve issues such as ambiguity and lack of comprehensiveness that can occur with conventional narrative reports, the adoption of structured reporting has been proposed. Using a checklist and standardized lexicon, structured reports are designed to increase clarity while assuring that all key imaging findings related to a specific disorder are included. Unfortunately, structured reports have their limitations too, such as risk of undue report simplification and poor template plasticity. Their adoption is also far from widespread, and probably the ideal balance between radiologist autonomy and report consistency of has yet to be found. In this article, we aimed to provide an overview of structured reporting proposals for abdominal MRI and of works assessing its value in comparison to conventional free-text reporting. While for several abdominal disorders there are structured templates that have been endorsed by scientific societies and their adoption might be beneficial, stronger evidence confirming their imperativeness and added value in terms of clinical practice is needed, especially regarding the improvement of patient outcome.

Lexicon for renal mass terms at CT and MRI: a consensus of the society of abdominal radiology disease-focused panel on renal cell carcinoma

PURPOSE

There is substantial variation in the radiologic terms used to characterize renal masses, leading to ambiguity and inconsistency in clinical radiology reports and research studies. The purpose of this study was to develop a standardized lexicon to describe renal masses at CT and MRI.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This multi-institutional, prospective, quality improvement project was exempt from IRB oversight. Thirteen radiologists belonging to the Society of Abdominal Radiology (SAR) disease-focused panel on renal cell carcinoma representing nine academic institutions participated in a modified Delphi process to create a lexicon of terms used to describe imaging features of renal masses at CT and MRI. In the first round, members voted on terms to be included and proposed definitions; subsequent voting rounds and a teleconference established consensus. One non-voting member developed the questionnaire and consolidated responses. Consensus was defined as ≥ 80% agreement.

RESULTS

Of 37 proposed terms, 6 had consensus to be excluded. Consensus for inclusion was reached for 30 of 31 terms (13/14 basic imaging terms, 8/8 CT terms, 6/6 MRI terms and 3/3 miscellaneous terms). Despite substantial initial disagreement about definitions of 'renal mass,' 'necrosis,' 'fat,' and 'restricted diffusion' in the first round, consensus for all was eventually reached. Disagreement remained for the definition of 'solid mass.'

CONCLUSIONS

A modified Delphi method produced a lexicon of preferred terms and definitions to be used in the description of renal masses at CT and MRI. This lexicon should improve clarity and consistency of radiology reports and research related to renal masses.

Discrepant Reporting Style Preferences Between Clinicians and Radiologists

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

To compare preferences in reporting styles between radiologists and clinicians in structured vs unstructured reporting styles in order to facilitate better communication.

METHODS

An online survey was distributed to 5280 clinicians, radiologists, and physicians in training surveying respondent preference for three different reporting styles: expanded structured, minimized structured, and unstructured.

RESULTS

A 7.5% response rate was achieved. Overall, the expanded structured reporting style was the most preferred (47%, 186/394). This contrasted with radiologists who preferred the unstructured reporting style (41%), whereas nonradiologists preferred the expanded structured reporting style (51%; P < 0.001). There was significance in emergency medicine physicians preferring the minimized structured reporting style (51%, 27/43), whereas all other specialties preferred the expanded structured report (49%, 168/341; P = 0.0038).

DISCUSSION

There is a discrepant reporting style preference between clinicians and radiologists. A structured reporting style with expanded standard statements is preferred by most physicians. Radiologists could consider using a structured reporting style with minimized normal statements in the emergency room setting.

A Practical Guide to Artificial Intelligence-Based Image Analysis in Radiology

The use of artificial intelligence (AI) is a powerful tool for image analysis that is increasingly being evaluated by radiology professionals. However, due to the fact that these methods have been developed for the analysis of nonmedical image data and data structure in radiology departments is not "AI ready", implementing AI in radiology is not straightforward. The purpose of this review is to guide the reader through the pipeline of an AI project for automated image analysis in radiology and thereby encourage its implementation in radiology departments. At the same time, this review aims to enable readers to critically appraise articles on AI-based software in radiology.

Contextual Structured Reporting in Radiology: Implementation and Long-Term Evaluation in Improving the Communication of Critical Findings

Structured reporting contributes to the completeness of radiology reports and improves quality. Both the content and the structure are essential for successful implementation of structured reporting. Contextual structured reporting is tailored to a specific scenario and can contain information retrieved from the context. Critical findings detected by imaging need urgent communication to the referring physician. According to guidelines, the occurrence of this communication should be documented in the radiology reports and should contain when, to whom and how was communicated. In free-text reporting, one or more of these required items might be omitted. We developed a contextual structured reporting template to ensure complete documentation of the communication of critical findings. The WHEN and HOW items were included automatically, and the insertion of the WHO-item was facilitated by the template. A pre- and post-implementation study demonstrated a substantial improvement in guideline adherence. The template usage improved in the long-term post-implementation study compared with the short-term results. The two most often occurring categories of critical findings are “infection / inflammation” and “oncology”, corresponding to the a large part of urgency level 2 (to be reported within 6 h) and level 3 (to be reported within 6 days), respectively. We conclude that contextual structured reporting is feasible for required elements in radiology reporting and for automated insertion of context-dependent data. Contextual structured reporting improves guideline adherence for communication of critical findings.

Impact of a standardized reporting format on the quality of MRI reports for rectal cancer staging

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Besides providing a surgical roadmap, rectal MRI plays a major role in treatment planning. We recently started using a structured template for reporting rectal cancer via MRI. We study the impact of using this template at our hospital in terms of number of essential imaging parameters described in the reports as compared to the pre-template free-text reports.

METHODS

A structured rectal MRI reporting template was created in consensus with members of the colorectal tumour board and was introduced in the department, which included 14 essential parameters to be mentioned in the reports. We conducted a retrospective analysis of rectal MRI reports of 100 cases with histologically proven rectal cancer, comprising 50 consecutive free-text reports before the template was introduced and 50 consecutive structured reports after its introduction, checking for the presence or absence of inclusion of the 14 parameters. An anonymous online feedback survey was conducted as well after the introduction of the template for the members of the colorectal tumour board.

RESULTS

Overall, the total number of parameters reported increased from a median value of 10 (range 6-13) to 14 (range 12-14). The common unreported parameters prior to template introduction included T staging, presence or absence of restricted diffusion, anterior peritoneal reflection (APR) involvement, and presence or absence of extramural vascular invasion; these were reported in 16%, 22%, 30% and 50% respectively. These improved to 98-100% reporting after template introduction. Maximum improvement was in T staging (16% to 98%) (P < 0.0001), restricted diffusion on DWI (from 22% to 100%) (P < 0.0001) and APR involvement (from 30% to 100%) (P < 0.0001). The most common unreported parameter after template introduction was the "tumoral T2 signal intensity" (unreported in 4% cases). The results of the survey were as follows: 100% felt a decreased need to talk to the radiologist to clarify the report, 81.8% felt an improvement in the quality of reporting as compared to free style reports, and 91% felt that the new template is easier to interpret.

CONCLUSION

The introduction of a structured template for rectal cancer significantly improved the quality of rectal MRI reports, along with the satisfaction of referring providers.