Advertisement

Journal of Digital Imaging

, Volume 32, Issue 6, pp 1081–1088 | Cite as

Evaluation of Audiovisual Reports to Enhance Traditional Emergency Musculoskeletal Radiology Reports

  • Luís Pecci Neto
  • Ivan R. B. GodoyEmail author
  • André Fukunishi Yamada
  • Henrique CarreteJr
  • Dany Jasinowodolinski
  • Abdalla Skaf
Original Paper
  • 76 Downloads

Abstract

Traditional radiology reports are narrative texts that include a description of imaging findings. Recent implementation of advanced reporting software allows for incorporation of annotated key images and hyperlinks directly into text reports, but these tools usually do not substitute in-person consultations with radiologists, especially in challenging cases. Use of on-demand audio/visual reports with screen capture software is an emerging technology, providing a more engaged imaging service. Our study evaluates a video reporting tool that utilizes PACS integrated screen capture software for musculoskeletal imaging studies in the emergency department. Our hypothesis is that referring orthopedic surgeons would find that recorded audio/video reports add value to conventional reports, may increase engagement with radiology staff, and also facilitate understanding of imaging findings from urgent musculoskeletal cases. Seven radiologists prepared a total of 47 audiovisual reports for 9 attending orthopedic surgeons from the emergency department. We applied two surveys to evaluate the experience of the referring physicians using audio/visual reports as a complementary material from the conventional text report. Positive responses were statistically significant in most questions including: if the clinical suspicion was answered in the video; willingness to use such technology in other cases; if the audiovisual report made the imaging findings more understandable than the traditional report; and if the audiovisual report is faster to understand than the traditional text report. Use of audiovisual reports in emergency musculoskeletal cases is a new approach to evaluate potentially challenging cases. These results support the potential of this technology to re-establish the radiologist’s role as an essential member of patient care and also provide more engaging, precise, and personalized reports. Further studies could streamline these methods in order to minimize work redundancy with traditional text reporting or even evaluate acceptance of using only audiovisual radiology reports. Additionally, widespread adoption would require integration with the entire radiology workflow including non-urgent cases and other medical specialties.

Keywords

Video recording Web technology Radiology workflow Radiology report Software design Audio/video report Software Audiovisual Musculoskeletal 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the orthopedic surgeons and radiologists involved in this work.

Availability of Data and Materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Authors’ Contributions

IG provided the clinical data included in the text. IG wrote the manuscript draft. IG and LPN revised it critically and approved the modified text. IG, LPN, and AS approved the final version of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board and was compliant with HIPAA guidelines.

Consent for Publication

A written informed consent was obtained from the subjects for publication.

Competing Interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Supplementary material

10278_2019_261_MOESM1_ESM.mp4 (5.5 mb)
Video 1 Example of an audiovisual report. CT images of a 73-year-old female patient with right hip pain after trauma showing a cominutive and dislocated acetabular fracture. (MP4 5641 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Berwick DM, Nolan TW, Whittington J: The triple aim: Care, health, and cost. Health Affairs 27(3):759–769, 2008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barnes KA, Kroening-Roche JC, Comfort BW: The developing vision of primary care. New England Journal of Medicine 367(10):891–893, 2012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wallis A, Mccoubrie P: The radiology report—are we getting the message across? Clinical Radiology 66(11):1015–1022, 2011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Larson DB: Strategies for implementing a standardized structured radiology reporting program. Radiographics 38(6):1705–1716, 2011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hoff WS, Sicoutris CP, Lee SY, Rotondo MF, Holstein JJ, Gracias VH, Pryor JP, Reilly PM, Doroski KK, Schwab CW: Formalized radiology rounds: the final component of the tertiary survey. Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery 56(2):291–295, 2004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mamlouk MD, Anavim A, Goodwin SC: Radiology residents rounding with the clinical teams: a pilot study to improve the radiologist's visibility as a consultant. Journal of the American College of Radiology 11(3):326–328, 2014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Weiss DL, Kim W, Branstetter, IV BF, Prevedello LM: Radiology reporting: a closed-loop cycle from order entry to results communication. Journal of the American College of Radiology 11(12):1226–1237, 2014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mangano MD, Rahman A, Choy G, Sahani DV, Boland GW, Gunn AJ: Radiologists’ role in the communication of imaging examination results to patients: perceptions and preferences of patients. American Journal of Roentgenology 203(5):1034–1039, 2014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rose G: Audio/video interface as a supplement to radiology reports. U.S. Patent No. 8,434,005; 2013Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Radiology Cares campaign. Radiological Society of North America. http://www.rsna.org/Radiology_Cares/. Accessed 17 July 2019
  11. 11.
    Neiman HL: Face of radiology campaign. Academic Radiology 16(5):517–520, 2009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Balkman JD, Siegel AH: An audio/video reporting workflow to supplement standardized radiology reports. Journal of Digital Imaging 29(2):153–159, 2016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Menashe S, Otjen J, Thapa MM: Techniques for creating video content for radiology education. Radiographics 34(7):1819–1823, 2014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yi PH, Golden SK, Harringa JB, Kliewer MA: Readability of lumbar spine MRI reports: will patients understand? American Journal of Roentgenology 212(3):602–606, 2019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Drozd B, Couvillon E, Suarez A: Medical YouTube videos and methods of evaluation: Literature review. JMIR medical education 4(1):e3, 2018CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Imaging Informatics in Medicine 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luís Pecci Neto
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Ivan R. B. Godoy
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • André Fukunishi Yamada
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Henrique CarreteJr
    • 2
  • Dany Jasinowodolinski
    • 1
  • Abdalla Skaf
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyHospital do Coração (HCor) and TeleimagemSão PauloBrazil
  2. 2.Department of Diagnostic ImagingFederal University of São Paulo (UNIFESP)São PauloBrazil
  3. 3.ALTA Diagnostic Center (DASA Group)São PauloBrazil

Personalised recommendations