Structured reporting in petrous bone MRI examinations: impact on report completeness and quality

Impact of Structured Reporting of Lower Extremity CT Angiography on Report Quality and Workflow Efficiency

We assessed the effects of structured reporting (SR) of lower extremity CT angiography (CTA) on report quality and workflow efficiency compared with conventional reports (CR). Surveys were conducted at an academic radiology department before and after the introduction of an SR template. Participants (n = 39, 21) rated report quality and report creation effort (1: very dissatisfied/low to 10: very satisfied/high) and whether SR represents an improvement over CR (1: completely disagree to 5: completely agree). Four residents and two supervising radiologists created both CR and SR of 40 CTA examinations. Report creation time was measured and the factual accuracy of residents' reports was judged. Report completeness (median 8.0 vs. 7.0, p = 0.016) and clinical usefulness (7.0 vs. 4.0, p = 0.029) were rated higher for SR. Supervising radiologists found report clarity improved by SR (8.0 vs. 4.5, p = 0.029). Report creation effort was unchanged (7.0 vs. 6.0, p > 0.05). SR was considered an improvement over CR (median 4.0, IQR,3.0-5.0). Report supervision was shortened by SR (6.2 ± 2.0 min vs. 10.6 ± 3.5 min, p < 0.001) but total time for report creation remained unchanged (36.6 ± 12.8 min vs. 36.4 ± 11.0 min, p > 0.05). Factual accuracy of residents' SR was deemed higher (8.0/9.5 vs. 7.0/7.0, p = 0.006/ < 0.001). In conclusion, SR has the potential to improve report quality and workflow efficiency for lower extremity CTA.

Structured versus non-structured reporting of pelvic MRI for ileal pouch evaluation: clarity and effectiveness

PURPOSE

Given that ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) surgery is a technically challenging and high-morbidity procedure, there are numerous pertinent imaging findings that need to be clearly and efficiently communicated to the IBD surgeons for essential patient management and surgical planning. Structured reporting has been increasingly used over the past decade throughout various radiology subspecialties to improve reporting clarity and completeness. We compare structured versus non-structured reporting of pelvic MRI for ileal pouch to evaluate for clarity and effectiveness.

METHODS

164 consecutive pelvic MRI's for ileal pouch evaluation, excluding subsequent exams for the same patient, acquired between 1/1/2019 and 7/31/2021 at one institution were included, before and after implementation (11/15/2020) of a structured reporting template, which was created with institutional IBD surgeons. Reports were assessed for the presence of 18 key features required for complete ileal pouch assessment: anastomosis (IPAA, tip of J, pouch body), cuff (length, cuffitis), pouch body (size, pouchitis, stricture), pouch inlet/pre-pouch ileum (stricture, inflammation, sharp angulation), pouch outlet (stricture), peripouch mesentery (position, mesentery twist), pelvic abscess, peri-anal fistula, pelvic lymph nodes, and skeletal abnormalities. Subgroup analysis was performed based on reader experience and divided into three categories: experienced (n = 2), other intra-institutional (n = 20), or affiliate site (n = 6).

RESULTS

57 (35%) structured and 107 (65%) non-structured pelvic MRI reports were reviewed. Structured reports contained 16.6 [SD:4.0] key features whereas non-structured reports contained 6.3 [SD:2.5] key features (p < .001). The largest improvement following template implementation was for reporting sharp angulation of the pouch inlet (91.2% vs. 0.9%, p < .001), tip of J suture line and pouch body anastomosis (both improved to 91.2% from 3.7%). Structured versus non-structured reports contained mean 17.7 versus 9.1 key features for experienced readers, 17.0 versus 5.9 for other intra-institutional readers, and 8.7 versus 5.3 for affiliate site readers.

CONCLUSION

Structured reporting of pelvic MRI guides a systematic search pattern and comprehensive evaluation of ileal pouches, and therefore facilitates surgical planning and clinical management. This standardized reporting template can serve as baseline at other institutions for adaptation based on specific radiology and surgery preferences, fostering a collaborative environment between radiology and surgery, and ultimately improving patient care.

Structured reporting in radiology: a systematic review to explore its potential

OBJECTIVES

Structured reporting (SR) in radiology reporting is suggested to be a promising tool in clinical practice. In order to implement such an emerging innovation, it is necessary to verify that radiology reporting can benefit from SR. Therefore, the purpose of this systematic review is to explore the level of evidence of structured reporting in radiology. Additionally, this review provides an overview on the current status of SR in radiology.

METHODS

A narrative systematic review was conducted, searching PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library using the syntax 'radiol*' AND 'structur*' AND 'report*'. Structured reporting was divided in SR level 1, structured layout (use of templates and checklists), and SR level 2, structured content (a drop-down menu, point-and-click or clickable decision trees). Two reviewers screened the search results and included all quantitative experimental studies that discussed SR in radiology. A thematic analysis was performed to appraise the evidence level.

RESULTS

The search resulted in 63 relevant full text articles out of a total of 8561 articles. Thematic analysis resulted in 44 SR level 1 and 19 level 2 reports. Only one paper was scored as highest level of evidence, which concerned a double cohort study with randomized trial design.

CONCLUSION

The level of evidence for implementing SR in radiology is still low and outcomes should be interpreted with caution.

KEY POINTS

• Structured reporting is increasingly being used in radiology, especially in abdominal and neuroradiological CT and MRI reports. • SR can be subdivided into structured layout (SR level 1) and structured content (SR level 2), in which the first is defined as being a template in which the reporter has to report; the latter is an IT-based manner in which the content of the radiology report can be inserted and displayed into the report. • Despite the extensive amount of research on the subject of structured reporting, the level of evidence is low.

[Integration of structured reporting into the routine radiological workflow]

Klinisches/methodisches Problem

Strukturierte Befundung ist seit Jahren eines der meist diskutierten Themen in der Radiologie. Aktuell herrscht ein Mangel an nutzerfreundlichen Softwarelösungen, welche in die bestehende IT-Infrastruktur der Kliniken und Praxen integriert sind und effiziente Dateneingaben erlauben.

Radiologische Standardverfahren

Radiologische Befunde werden meist als Freitext über Spracherkennungssysteme diktiert oder per Tastatur eingegeben. Zudem werden Textbausteine für die Erstellung von Normalbefunden verwendet und bei Bedarf durch Freitextinhalte ergänzt.

Methodische Innovationen

Softwarebasierte Befundungssysteme können Spracherkennungssysteme mit radiologischen Befundvorlagen in Form von interaktiven Entscheidungsbäumen vereinen. Eine technische Integration in RIS(Radiologieinformationssystem)-, PACS(„picture archiving and communication system“)- und AV(„advanced visualization“)-Systeme über Programmierschnittstellen und Interoperabilitätsstandards ermöglicht effiziente Prozesse und die Generierung maschinenlesbarer Befunddaten.

Leistungsfähigkeit

Strukturierte, semantisch annotierte klinische Daten, die über ein strukturiertes Befundungssystem erhoben werden, stehen unmittelbar für epidemiologische Datenauswertungen und kontinuierliches KI(Künstliche Intelligenz)-Training zur Verfügung.

Bewertung

Der Einsatz der strukturierten Befundung in der radiologischen Routinediagnostik ist mit einer initialen Umstellungsphase verbunden. Eine erfolgreiche Implementierung setzt eine enge Verzahnung der technischen Infrastruktur mehrerer Systeme voraus.

Empfehlung für die Praxis

Durch die Nutzung einer hybriden, softwarebasierten Befundungslösung können radiologische Befunde mit unterschiedlichen Stufen der Struktur generiert werden. Klinische Fragestellungen oder Informationen können aus klinischen Subsystemen semiautomatisch übertragen werden, um vermeidbare Fehler zu eliminieren und die Produktivität zu erhöhen.

Structured Reporting of Computed Tomography Examinations in Post-Lung Transplantation Patients

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the benefits and potential of structured reports (SR) for chest computed tomography after lung transplantation.

METHODS

Free-text reports (FTR) and SR were generated for 49 computed tomography scans. Clinical routine reports were used as FTR. Two pulmonologists rated formal aspects, completeness, clinical utility, and overall quality. Wilcoxon and McNemar tests were used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Structured reports received significantly higher ratings for all formals aspects (P < 0.001, respectively). Completeness was higher in SR with regard to evaluation of bronchiectases, bronchial anastomoses, bronchiolitic and fibrotic changes (P < 0.001, respectively), and air trapping (P = 0.012), but not signs of pneumonia (P = 0.5). Clinical utility and overall quality were rated significantly higher for SR than FTR (P < 0.001, respectively). However, report type did not influence initiation of further diagnostic or therapeutic measures (P = 0.307 and 1.0).

CONCLUSIONS

Structured reports are superior to FTR with regard to formal aspects, completeness, clinical utility, and overall satisfaction of referring pulmonologists.

[Quality in the appraisal of head and neck sonography results in university hospitals-a random sample]

Hintergrund

Die Ultraschalldiagnostik gilt für den Radiologen, Hals-Nasen-Ohren-Arzt (HNO) oder Mund-Kiefer-Gesichts-Chirurgen als Standard in der Abklärung zahlreicher Pathologien. Es besteht ein Konsens, dass die digitale Dokumentation heute dringend notwendig ist, um die Qualität der sonographischen Dokumentationen zu verbessern und zu standardisieren. Es häufen sich Publikationen zur Implementierung standardisierter Befunddokumentation einschließlich der Kopf- und Halssonographie.

Ziel der Arbeit

Die vorliegende Arbeit zielt darauf ab, die Qualität von routinemäßig angefertigten Kopf- und Halssonographiebefunden nach Kriterien der Kassenärztlichen Vereinigung (KV) Bayern an einer Auswahl deutscher HNO-Universitätskliniken stichprobenartig zu ermitteln.

Material und Methoden

Insgesamt wurden retrospektiv 70 zufällig ausgewählte, anonymisierte schriftliche Befunde einschließlich Bildmaterial von insgesamt 7 HNO-Universitätskliniken stichprobenartig nach KV-Kriterien durch einen erfahrenen Prüfer der KV Bayern ausgewertet und deskriptiv analysiert.

Ergebnisse

Von 70 Befunden konnten 69 ausgewertet werden. Die Dokumentationsvollständigkeit lag im Mittel bei 80,6 %. Neun Befunde waren vollständig korrekt dokumentiert (13 %). Die Dokumentationsvollständigkeit der einzelnen Kliniken lag zwischen 68,1 % und 93 %. Mit 88,5 % vs. 75 % erbrachte eine strukturierte Befundung eine höhere Befundvollständigkeit. In 75 % der Fälle verfügten die Kliniken mit strukturiertem Befund auch über digitale Dokumentationslösungen.

Schlussfolgerung

Die Vollständigkeit und Qualität von routinemäßig angefertigten Kopf- und Halssonographiebefunden an einer Auswahl von HNO-Universitätskliniken ist insgesamt optimierbar. Die Implementierung strukturierter Befundmasken und die Umstellung der analogen Dokumentation auf digitale Lösungen sowie Vernetzung mit dem Klinikinformationssystem (KIS) und Bildarchivierungs- und Kommunikationssystem (PACS) sollte weiter vorangetrieben werden. Darüber hinaus sind leitende Ärzte dazu angehalten, die Befundqualität unerfahrener Kollegen regelmäßig zu prüfen und im Rahmen der Facharztausbildung auf die Erfüllung entsprechender Standards wie der KV-Ultraschallvereinbarung hinzuarbeiten.

The use of structured reporting of head and neck ultrasound ensures time-efficiency and report quality during residency

PURPOSE

Free text reports (FTR) of head and neck ultrasound studies are currently deployed in most departments. Because of a lack of composition and language, these reports vary greatly in terms of quality and reliability. This may impair the learning process during residency. The purpose of the study was to analyze the longitudinal effects of using structured reports (SR) of head and neck ultrasound studies during residency.

METHODS

Attending residents (n = 24) of a tripartite course on head and neck ultrasound, accredited by the German Society for Ultrasound in Medicine (DEGUM), were randomly allocated to pictures of common diseases. Both SRs and FTRs were compiled. All reports were analyzed concerning completeness, acquired time and legibility. Overall user contentment was evaluated by a questionnaire.

RESULTS

SRs achieved significantly higher ratings regarding completeness (95.6% vs. 26.4%, p < 0.001), description of pathologies (72.2% vs. 58.9%, p < 0.001) and legibility (100% vs. 52.4%, p < 0.001) with a very high inter-rater reliability (Fleiss' kappa 0.9). Reports were finalized significantly faster (99.1 s vs. 115.0 s, p < 0.001) and user contentment was significantly better when using SRs (8.3 vs. 6.3, p < 0.001). In particular, only SRs showed a longitudinally increasing time efficiency (- 20.1 s, p = 0.036) while maintaining consistent completeness ratings.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of SRs of head and neck ultrasound studies results in an increased longitudinal time-efficiency while upholding the report quality at the same time. This may indicate an additive learning effect of structured reporting. Superior outcomes in terms of comprehensiveness, legibility and time-efficiency can be observed immediately after implementation.