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

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. 1.

    Johnson AJ, Easterling D, Williams LS, Glover S, Frankel RM. Insight from patients for radiologists: improving our reporting systems. J Am Coll Radiol 2009; 6:786-794

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Mityul MI, Gilcrease-Garcia B, Mangano MD, Demertzis JL, Gunn AJ. Radiology reporting: current practices and an introduction to patient-centered opportunities for improvement. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2018; 210:376-385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Cistrom CL, Langlotz CP. A framework for improving radiology reporting. J Am Coll Radiol 2005; 2:159-167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Naik SS, Hanbridge A, Wilson SR. Radiology reports: examining radiologist and clinician preferences regarding style and content. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001; 176:591-598

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Reiner BI, Knight N, Siegel EL. Radiology reporting, past, present, and future: the radiologist’s perspective. J Am Coll Radiol 2007; 4:313-319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Srinivasa Babu A, Brooks ML. The malpractice liability of radiology reports: minimizing the risk. RadioGraphics 2015; 35:547-554

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Cistrom CL, Honeyman-Buck J. Free text versus structured format: information transfer efficiency of radiology reports. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005; 185:804-812

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Schoeppe F, Sommer WH, Norenberg D, et al. Structured reporting adds clinical value in primary CT staging of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Eur Radiol 2018; 28:3702-3709

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Duszak R, Nossal M, Schofield L, Picus D. Physician documentation deficiencies in abdominal ultrasound reports: frequency, characteristics, and financial impact. J Am Coll Radiol 2012; 9:403-408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Jain BM, Bhagwat KA, Shashikiran RB, et al. Structured reporting of facial skeletal CT scan as a tool to reduce report turnaround time. European Congress of Radiology (2017); Vienna, Austria. https://doi.org/10.1594/ecr2017/B-0103

  11. 11.

    Lin E, Powell DK, Kagetsu NJ. Efficacy of a checklist-style structured radiology reporting template in reducing resident misses on cervical spine computed tomography examinations. J Digit Imaging 2014; 27:588-593

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    McWilliams JP, Shah RP, Quirk M, et al. Standardized reporting in IR: a prospective multi-institutional pilot study. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2016; 27:1779-1785

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Hawkins CM, Hall S, Zhang B, Towbin AJ. Creation and implementation of department-wide structured reports: an analysis of the impact on error rate in radiology reports. J Digit Imaging 2014; 27:581-587

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Gunn AJ, Alabre CI, Bennett SE, et al. Structured feedback from referring physicians: a novel approach to quality improvement in radiology reporting. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2013; 201:853-857

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Gunn AJ, Gilcrease-Garcia B, Mangano MD, Sahani DV, Boland GW, Choy G. Structured feedback from patients on actual radiology reports: a novel approach to improve reporting practices. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2017; 208:1262-1270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Nguyen Q, Sarwar A, Luo M, Berkowitz S, Ahmed M, Brook OR. Structured reporting of IR procedures: effect on report compliance, accuracy, and satisfaction. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2018; 29:345-352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Park SB, Kim MJ, Ko Y, Sim JY, Kim HJ, Lee KH. Structured reporting versus free-text reporting for appendiceal computed tomography in adolescents and young adults: preference survey of 594 referring physicians, surgeons, and radiologists from 20 hospitals. Korean J Radiol 2019; 20:246-255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Lather JD, Che Z, Saltzman B, Bieszczad J. Structured reporting in the academic setting: what the referring clinician wants. J Am Coll Radiol 2018; 15:772-775

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Authors acknowledge Yufeng Li, PhD from the University of Alabama at Birmingham for her assistance with the statistical analysis

Funding

The authors have no sources of support in association with this manuscript.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

JAM was responsible for project creation, project design, data collection, data analysis, and wrote the first draft of the manuscript; AMAE was responsible for data collection, data analysis, and manuscript editing; LC was responsible for data collection, data analysis, and manuscript editing; GDS was responsible for project design, data collection, data analysis, and manuscript editing; ADS was responsible for project design, data analysis, and manuscript editing; AJG was responsible for project creation, project design, data analysis, final draft of the manuscript, and supervision of team members.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew J. Gunn.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflict of interest in association with this manuscript.

Ethical approval

The study was approved by our institutional review board (IRB) at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, which waived any requirement for patients to consent to participate or have the data published.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (XLSX 20 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

McFarland, J.A., Elkassem, A.M.A., Casals, L. et al. Objective comparison of errors and report length between structured and freeform abdominopelvic computed tomography reports. Abdom Radiol 46, 387–393 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-020-02646-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • Radiology reports
  • Structured reporting
  • Freeform reporting
  • Free text reporting
  • Reporting errors