Advertisement

Pediatric Radiology

, Volume 47, Issue 13, pp 1724–1729 | Cite as

The fate of radiology report recommendations at a pediatric medical center

  • Bonmyong Lee
  • Hansel J. Otero
  • Matthew T. WhiteheadEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

Background

The American College of Radiology (ACR) practice parameters for communication dictate that follow-up recommendations be suggested when appropriate. Radiologists assume that referring physicians read their reports and heed their advice. In reality, recommendations might not be carried out or even acknowledged.

Objective

We aimed to determine the proportion of imaging recommendations that are acknowledged and acted upon.

Materials and methods

We conducted a retrospective review of all consecutive radiology reports containing “recommend” in the impression at a single academic children’s hospital over a 1-month period. We documented point of care (emergency department, inpatient, outpatient), study type, recommendation wording, and communication method (report only or direct verbal). We reviewed medical records to ascertain whether the recommendations were acknowledged or executed. We used chi-square tests to evaluate associations between variables. P<0.05 was considered significant.

Results

We reviewed 526 reports and excluded 73. We included the remaining 453 reports, from 370 unique patients (201 male, 169 female). Inpatients comprised most reports (n=223), followed by emergency department (ED) patients (n=118) and outpatients (n=112). Among these reports, 69% (n=313) of recommendations were executed. Of the 140 recommendations not carried out, 14% were acknowledged in clinical notes. Compliance correlated with point of care (ED>inpatient>outpatient; P=0.001) but not with additional verbal communication (P=0.33), study type (radiograph vs. other; P=0.35) or type of follow-up recommendation (follow-up imaging vs. other; P=0.99).

Conclusion

Nearly one-third of radiology report follow-up recommendations are not executed. Recommendations are most commonly neglected for outpatient imaging reports. The radiology community should take steps to improve recommendation adherence.

Keywords

Children Follow-up Radiology Recommendations Reporting 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

None

References

  1. 1.
    Wallis A, McCoubrie P (2011) The radiology report — are we getting the message across? Clin Radiol 66:1015–1022CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Goergen SK, Pool JJ, Turner TJ et al (2013) Evidence-based guideline for the written radiology report: methods, recommendations and implementation challenges. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 57:1–7CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lukaszewicz A, Uricchio J, Gerasymchuk G (2016) The art of the radiology report: practical and stylistic guidelines for perfecting the conveyance of imaging findings. Can Assoc Radiol J 67:318–321CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    American College of Radiology (2014) ACR practice parameter for communication of diagnostic imaging findings. Resolution 11. https://www.acr.org/~/media/C5D1443C9EA4424AA12477D1AD1D927D.pdf. Accessed 19 July 2017
  5. 5.
    Reiner BI (2013) Strategies for radiology reporting and communication. Part 1: challenges and heightened expectations. J Digit Imaging 26:610–613CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lee B, Whitehead MT (2016) Radiology reports: what you think you’re saying and what they think you’re saying. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol 46:186–195CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shuaib W, Vijayasarathi A, Johnson JO et al (2014) Factors affecting patient compliance in the acute setting: an analysis of 20,000 imaging reports. Emerg Radiol 21:373–379CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Blaivas M, Lyon M (2007) Frequency of radiology self-referral in abdominal computed tomographic scans and the implied cost. Am J Emerg Med 25:396–399CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Baumgarten DA, Nelson RC (1997) Outcome of examinations self-referred as a result of spiral CT of the abdomen. Acad Radiol 4:802–805CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Furtado CD, Aguirre DA, Sirlin CB et al (2005) Whole-body CT screening: spectrum of findings and recommendations in 1,192 patients. Radiology 237:385–394CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sistrom CL, Dreyer KJ, Dang PP et al (2009) Recommendations for additional imaging in radiology reports: multifactorial analysis of 5.9 million examinations. Radiology 253:453–461CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tanpitukpongse TP, Grady AT, Sosa JA et al (2015) Incidental thyroid nodules on CT or MRI: discordance between what we report and what receives workup. AJR Am J Roentgenol 205:1281–1287CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wickramarachchi BN, Meyer-Rochow GY, McAnulty K et al (2016) Adherence to adrenal incidentaloma guidelines is influenced by radiology report recommendations. ANZ J Surg 86:483–486CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Al-Mutairi A, Meyer AN, Chang P et al (2015) Lack of timely follow-up of abnormal imaging results and radiologists' recommendations. J Am Coll Radiol 12:385–389CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Singh H, Thomas EJ, Mani S et al (2009) Timely follow-up of abnormal diagnostic imaging test results in an outpatient setting: are electronic medical records achieving their potential? Arch Intern Med 169:1578–1586PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gunderman R, Ambrosius WT, Cohen M (2000) Radiology reporting in an academic children’s hospital: what referring physicians think. Pediatr Radiol 30:307–314CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gunn AJ, Sahani DV, Bennett SE et al (2013) Recent measures to improve radiology reporting: perspectives from primary care physicians. J Am Coll Radiol 10:122–127CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Arenson (2009) Recommendations for additional imaging in radiology reports: radiologists’ self-referral or good clinical practice? Radiology 253:291–292CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Grieve FM, Plumb AA, Khan SH (2010) Reporting: a general practitioner's perspective. Br J Radiol 83:17–22CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lee SI, Krishnaraj A, Chatterji M et al (2012) When does a radiologist's recommendation for follow-up result in high-cost imaging? Radiology 262:544–549CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Doshi AM, Kiritsy M, Rosenkrantz AB (2015) Strategies for avoiding recommendations for additional imaging through a comprehensive comparison with prior studies. J Am Coll Radiol 12:657–663CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Berlin L, Murphy DR, Singh H (2014) Breakdowns in communication of radiological findings: an ethical and medico-legal conundrum. Diagnosis 1:263–268PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Berlin L (2002) Communicating findings of radiologic examinations: whither goest the radiologist’s duty? AJR Am J Roentgeol 178:809–815CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Poon EG, Gandhi TK, Murff SHJ et al (2004) ‘I wish I had seen this test result earlier!’: dissatisfaction with test result management systems in primary care. Arch Intern Med 164:2223–2228CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Murphy DR, Singh H, Berlin L (2014) Communication breakdowns and diagnostic errors: a radiology perspective. Diagnosis 1:253–261CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Khorasani R, Bates DW, Teeger S et al (2003) Is terminology used effectively to convey diagnostic certainty in radiology reports? Acad Radiol 10:685–688CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, Dann E et al (2014) Using radiology reports to encourage evidence-based practice in the evaluation of small, incidentally detected pulmonary nodules. A preliminary study. Ann Am Thorac Soc 11:211–214CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Boland GW, Thrall JH, Gazelle GS et al (2011) Decision support for radiologist report recommendations. J Am Coll Radiol 8:819–823CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Singh H, Arora HS, Viji M et al (2007) Communication outcomes of critical imaging results in a computerized notification system. J Am Med Inform Assoc 14:459–466CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bonmyong Lee
    • 1
  • Hansel J. Otero
    • 2
    • 3
  • Matthew T. Whitehead
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyThe Johns Hopkins Medical InstituteBaltimoreUSA
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyChildren’s National Medical CenterWashingtonUSA
  3. 3.The George Washington University School of MedicineWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations