Advertisement

European Radiology

, Volume 29, Issue 1, pp 224–231 | Cite as

Direct communication between radiologists and patients following imaging examinations. Should radiologists rethink their patient care?

  • Andreas Gutzeit
  • Regine Heiland
  • Sonja Sudarski
  • Johannes M. Froehlich
  • Klaus Hergan
  • Matthias Meissnitzer
  • Sebastian Kos
  • Peter Bertke
  • Orpheus Kolokythas
  • Dow M. Koh
Magnetic Resonance
  • 271 Downloads

Abstract

Objectives

To investigate patients’ perception of the radiology service when the radiologist communicates the findings to patients.

Methods

After routine MRI, patients in group 1 (n = 101) were given the opportunity to discuss the findings with the radiologist. Patients in group 2 (n = 101) left the radiology department without any personal communication. Subsequently, by means of a questionnaire designed by an expert psychologist, both groups were asked regarding their anxiety, emotional attachment to the institute and subjective assessment of competence.

Results

Overall 76 % of all patients were concerned about their imaging findings without significant difference between both groups (p = 0.179). Significantly more patients in group 1 (81%) versus group 2 (14%; p < 0.001) perceived the opportunity to discuss their imaging findings with a radiologist to be a characteristic of a good radiology consultation. A larger number of patients in group 1 experienced significantly higher bonding and only wanted in the future to be examined in the department with communication (p = 0.001) (93%/75%). Significantly more patients in group 1 regarded the radiology department they attended as being more competent (mean score 4.72/4.09, p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Direct communication of imaging findings from radiologists to patients after an MRI examination leads to increased confidence in the radiology service and higher bonding between the patient and radiologist. Radiologists who refrain from direct communication have a lower bonding to patients and are assessed to have lower competence from the patient’s point of view.

Key Points

• Communication between radiologists and patients leads to an increased bonding affinity.

• Direct communication leads to increased patient confidence in the radiology service.

• Patients perceived discussion with a radiologist of high value.

Keywords

Communication Anxiety Psychology Surveys Questionnaires 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Deep thanks are due to Friedemann Schulz von Thun from Hamburg in Germany, who is an important scientist and teacher of psychology and communication. The education in his institute opened our minds in many aspects.

We would like to thank our medical technologists, who try to improve good communication practice doing the best possible for our patients.

We thank Nicole Graf, who has supported us as a professional statistician in the evaluations (www.graf@biostatistics.ch).

Funding

The authors state that this work has not received any funding.

Compliance with ethical standards

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Andreas Gutzeit.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Statistics and biometry

Nicole Graf kindly provided statistical advice for this manuscript.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects (patients) in this study.

Ethical approval

Institutional review board approval was obtained.

Methodology

• prospective

• randomised controlled trial

• performed at one institution

References

  1. 1.
    Lo Re G, De Luca R, Muscarneri F et al (2016) Relationship between anxiety level and radiological investigation. Comparison among different diagnostic imaging exams in a prospective single-center study. Radiol Med 121:763–768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mettler FA, Bhargavan M, Faulkner K et al (2009) Radiologic and nuclear medicine studies in the United States and worldwide: frequency, radiation dose, and comparison with other radiation sources—1950–2007. Radiology 253:520–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dendl LM, Teufel A, Schleder S et al (2017) Analysis of radiological case presentations and their impact on therapy and treatment concepts in internal medicine. Rofo 189:239–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Miller LS, Shelby RA, Balmadrid MH (2016) Patient anxiety before and immediately after imaging-guided breast biopsy procedures: impact of radiologist-patient communication. J Am Coll Radiol 13:e62–e71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Berlin L (2009) Communicating results of all outpatient radiologic examinations directly to patients: the time has come. AJR Am J Roentgenol 192:571–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Glazer GM, Ruiz-Wibbelsmann JA (2011) The invisible radiologist. Radiology 258:18–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Margulis AR, Sostman HD (2004) Radiologist-patient contact during the performance of cross-sectional examinations. J Am Coll Radiol 1:162–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Boland GW, Glenn L, Goldberg-Stein S et al (2017) Report of the ACR's economics committee on value-based payment models. J Am Coll Radiol 14:6–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Spielberger CD et al (1980) State-trait anxiety inventory—Forma Y. Milano, Giunti O.S, pp 81–95Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rogers CR, Dorfman E, Nosbüsch E (1972) Client-centered therapy. Kindler Verlag, MünchenGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schulz von Thun F (2006) Miteinander Reden. Rowohlt-Taschenbuch-Verlag, MünchenGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sacristán J (2013) Patient-centered medicine and patient-oriented research: improving health outcomes for individual patients. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 13:6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kahn CE, Langlotz CP, Burnside ES et al (2009) Toward best practices in radiology reporting. Radiology 252:852–856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Levitsky DB, Frank MS, Richardson ML, Shneidman RJ (1993) How should radiologists reply when patients ask about their diagnoses? A survey of radiologists' and clinicians' preferences. AJR Am J Roentgenol 161:433–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pahade J, Couto C, Davis RB, Patel P, Siewert B, Rosen MP (2012) Reviewing imaging examination results with a radiologist immediately after study completion: patient preferences and assessment of feasibility in an academic department. AJR Am J Roentgenol 199:844–851CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Smith JN, Gunderman RB (2010) Should we inform patients of radiology results? Radiology 255:317–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    O'Mahony N, McCarthy E, McDermott R, O'Keeffe S (2012) Who's the doctor? Patients' perceptions of the role of the breast radiologist: a lesson for all radiologists. Br J Radiol 85:e1184–e1189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Koney N, Roudenko A, Ro M, Bahl S, Kagen A (2016) Patients want to meet with imaging experts. J Am Coll Radiol 13:465–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cabarrus M, Naeger DM, Rybkin A, Qayyum A (2015) Patients prefer results from the ordering provider and access to their radiology reports. J Am Coll Radiol 12:556–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    European Society of Radiology (ESR) (2017) ESR concept paper on value-based radiology. Insights Imaging 8:447–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Erdoğan N, İmamoğlu H, Görkem SB, Doğan S, Şenol S, Öztürk A (2017) Preferences of referring physicians regarding the role of radiologists as direct communicators of test results. Diagn Interv Radiol 23:81–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mangano MD, Rahman A, Choy G, Sahani DV, Boland GW, Gunn AJ (2014) Radiologists' role in the communication of imaging examination results to patients: perceptions and preferences of patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 203:1034–1039CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Miller P, Lightburn J, Gunderman R, Miller D (2012) Radiologists' role: the patient's perspective. Radiological Society of North America 2012 Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting, 25–30 November 30, 2012Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Norbash A, Bluth E, Lee CI (2014) Radiologist manpower considerations and Imaging 3.0: effort planning for value-based imaging. J Am Coll Radiol 11:953–958CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Flory N, Lang EV (2011) Distress in the radiology waiting room. Radiology 260:166–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    European Society of Radiology (Statement) (2010) The future role of radiology in healthcare. Insights Imaging 1:2–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Knechtges PM, Carlos RC (2007) The evolving role of radiologists within the health care system. J Am Coll Radiol 4:626–635CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andreas Gutzeit
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Regine Heiland
    • 4
  • Sonja Sudarski
    • 5
    • 6
  • Johannes M. Froehlich
    • 2
    • 3
  • Klaus Hergan
    • 1
  • Matthias Meissnitzer
    • 1
  • Sebastian Kos
    • 2
  • Peter Bertke
    • 7
  • Orpheus Kolokythas
    • 8
  • Dow M. Koh
    • 9
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyParacelsus Medical University SalzburgSalzburgAustria
  2. 2.Institute of Radiology and Nuclear MedicineHirslanden Klinik St. AnnaLucerneSwitzerland
  3. 3.Department of Chemistry and Applied Biosciences, Institute of Pharmaceutical SciencesETH ZurichZurichSwitzerland
  4. 4.elbdialog GbR; Schulz von Thun Institute, Institute for CommunicationHamburgGermany
  5. 5.Institute of Clinical Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Mannheim, Medical Faculty MannheimHeidelberg UniversityMannheimGermany
  6. 6.DZHK (German Centre for Cardiovascular Research) partner site MannheimMannheimGermany
  7. 7.Department of Internal MedicineHirslanden Klinik St. AnnaLucerneSwitzerland
  8. 8.Department of RadiologyUniversity WashingtonSeattleUSA
  9. 9.Department of RadiologyRoyal Marsden HospitalSurreyUK

Personalised recommendations