Abstract
BackgroundIn recent years, structured reporting has been shown to be beneficial with regard to report completeness and clinical decision-making as compared to free-text reports (FTR). However, the impact of structured reporting on reporting efficiency has not been thoroughly evaluted yet. The aim of this study was to compare reporting times and report quality of structured reports (SR) to conventional free-text reports of dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry exams (DXA).MethodsFTRs and SRs of DXA were retrospectively generated by 2 radiology residents and 2 final-year medical students. Time was measured from the first view of the exam until the report was saved. A random sample of DXA reports was selected and sent to 2 referring physicians for further evaluation of report quality.ResultsA total of 104 DXA reports (both FTRs and SRs) were generated and 48 randomly selected reports were evaluated by referring physicians. Reporting times were shorter for SRs in both radiology residents and medical students with median reporting times of 2.7 min (residents: 2.7, medical students: 2.7) for SRs and 6.1 min (residents: 5.0, medical students: 7.5) for FTRs. Information extraction was perceived to be significantly easier from SRs vs FTRs (P < 0.001). SRs were rated to answer the clinical question significantly better than FTRs (P < 0.007). Overall report quality was rated significantly higher for SRs compared to FTRs (P < 0.001) with 96% of SRs vs 79% of FTRs receiving high or very high-quality ratings. All readers except for one resident preferred structured reporting over free-text reporting and both referring clinicians preferred SRs over FTRs for DXA.ConclusionsTemplate-based structured reporting of DXA might lead to shorter reporting times and increased report quality.
Highlights
In previous years, there have been efforts by several international radiological societies to improve the quality of radiological reports through structured reporting [1,2,3,4,5]
Several studies have shown that structured reports (SR) tend to be more complete and may contribute to better clinical decision-making compared to conventional free-text reports (FTR) [6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13]
Structured reporting has been shown to be beneficial in examinations with complex criteria which need to be provided for referring physicians
Summary
There have been efforts by several international radiological societies to improve the quality of radiological reports through structured reporting [1,2,3,4,5]. Several studies have shown that structured reports (SR) tend to be more complete and may contribute to better clinical decision-making compared to conventional free-text reports (FTR) [6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13]. There is an ongoing debate on potential disadvantages of structured reporting, such as the risk of oversimplification [17], distraction by additional software [18], and the challenge of integrating structured reporting tools into the clinical workflow [19] Another aspect of the debate is the matter of time with suspected prolonged reporting times for SRs, especially in the transition phase from current free-text reporting practices to structured reporting [1, 20]. The aim of this study was to compare reporting times and report quality of structured reports (SR) to conventional free-text reports of dualenergy x-ray absorptiometry exams (DXA)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
