JACR: Patients want better radiology reporting systems

Most patients are dissatisfied with the efficacy of radiology reporting systems, according to a study published in the November issue of the Journal of the American College of Radiology.

The most common complaints had to do with reporting delays and a lack of detail accompanying those reports, according to Annette J. Johnson, MD, from the department of radiology at Wake Forest University School of Medicine in Winston Salem, N.C., and colleagues.

The study, according to the authors, was designed to provide guidance on how caregivers can redesign radiology reporting systems so that patients are treated as “customers and equal partners” with physicians as far as having access to information.

They tested three hypotheses:
  • Patients want more timely and complete access to full radiologic test results;
  • Patients perceive that the option for such increased access would be associated with increased patient satisfaction and autonomy; and
  • The idea of optional immediate online access to results is acceptable to most patients.

The authors used focus groups as the their method of investigation. One focus group had patients who had recently undergone MRI with normal results, and the other had patients who had undergone MRI with abnormal results. The  focus groups' participants were over the age of 18, had undergone MRI within the past month, were able to communicate verbally in English and were willing to travel to the focus group site. Patients with medical backgrounds were excluded. Forty-six outpatients were invited to join the focus groups, with 11 eventually participating (five in one group, six in the other).

The groups met for 90 to 120 minutes and the session focused on three issues:
  • What aspects of radiology information and access are important to patients?
  • What methods of information access and formats of reports are most acceptable to patients?
  • What potential problems or benefits might be associated with increasing patient access to radiology test results?

There was agreement among members of both focus groups on several key issues. The participants were dissatisfied with current radiology reporting systems, particularly with the delays and lack of detail associated with result notifications. Some patients wanted greater input from radiologists when receiving results, most wanted detailed written reports, and they strongly supported the idea of optional online access to results. All wanted prompt input from their physicians on what the results meant for the patient and what treatment steps should follow.

The authors identified several limitations in the study, such as the issue of generalizing focus group observations into the general population and the fact that this type of research doesn’t obtain much hard data.

“It seems clear that many, if not most, of the patients we spoke with wanted a change in the way they receive radiologic test results,” the authors concluded. “[W]hatever system revisions are attempted to increase the patient-centeredness of care as regards to radiology reporting, there will need to be much flexibility in the reporting process, especially in that individual patients will need to be able to choose their preferred levels of access.”

Michael Bassett,

Contributor

Around the web

As debate simmers over how best to regulate AI, experts continue to offer guidance on where to start, how to proceed and what to emphasize. A new resource models its recommendations on what its authors call the “SETO Loop.”

FDA Commissioner Robert Califf, MD, said the clinical community needs to combat health misinformation at a grassroots level. He warned that patients are immersed in a "sea of misinformation without a compass."

With generative AI coming into its own, AI regulators must avoid relying too much on principles of risk management—and not enough on those of uncertainty management.

Trimed Popup
Trimed Popup