Andrew John Gunn MD, Abstract Co-Author: Nothing to Disclose

Mark David Mangano MD, Presenter: Nothing to Disclose

Dushyant V. Sahani MD, Abstract Co-Author: Research Grant, General Electric Company

Giles W. Boland MD, Abstract Co-Author: Principal, Radiology Consulting Group Royalties, Reed Elsevier

Garry Choy MD, MS, Abstract Co-Author: Nothing to Disclose

Patients are increasingly being given direct access to their radiology examination results and thus becoming end-readers of the issued report. However, patients’ perceptions of these reports are largely unknown. Herein, we describe our experience in receiving structured feedback from patients on actual radiology reports as a means to improve reporting practices.

Eight reports (2 radiographs, 2 ultrasounds, 2 CTs, and 2 MRIs) were randomly selected from our system for review. The selected reports were de-identified and placed in random order prior to review. For each report, patients were asked to rate their level of comprehension, identify any problems in the report, and free-text any questions a patient may have about the report. Potentially confounding factors such as prior experience with radiology reports, patient educational status, and report length were also examined.

104 patients (45 males; 59 females) participated in the study (832 total evaluations). The mean level of report comprehension was 2.53 (1-5 scale) with “unclear or technical language” (59.6% of evaluations) and “too long” (10.2% of evaluations) being the most commonly cited problems. An explanation of the report in lay terms (20.1% of evaluations) was the most common request in the free-text portion. There was an inverse relationship between report length and patient comprehension (r2=0.69, p=0.01, df=6). Longer reports were also correlated with a higher number of patient-identified problems (r2=0.72, p=0.008, df=6). Patients who had prior experience with their own radiology reports indicated a greater comprehension (mean=2.76) than patients with no prior experience (mean=2.26; p=0.0006). No correlation between the patients’ educational status and report comprehension was identified (r2=0.005, p=0.91, df=3). 

Radiology reports are not well understood by patients, who identified the technical language and long length of reports as the most common problems. Longer reports tended to be less well understood and have more patient-identified problems. Radiologists should consider this structured feedback from patients when attempting to establish a more patient-centered practice. 

Structured feedback from patients on actual radiology reports is a feasible and patient-centered approach to improving reporting practices which has not been previously described.

Gunn, A, Mangano, M, Sahani, D, Boland, G, Choy, G, Structured Feedback from Patients on Actual Radiology Reports: A Novel Approach to Improve Reporting Practices.  Radiological Society of North America 2014 Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting, - ,Chicago IL. http://archive.rsna.org/2014/14011827.html