Clinical Radiology
Volume 64, Issue 4 , Pages 386-394, April 2009

Survey of hospital clinicians' preferences regarding the format of radiology reports

  • A.A.O. Plumb

      Affiliations

    • Corresponding Author InformationGuarantor and correspondent: A. Plumb, East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust, Haslingden Rd, Blackburn, BB2 3HH, UK. Tel.: +44 7779 593 543.
  • ,
  • F.M. Grieve
  • ,
  • S.H. Khan

East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust, Blackburn, UK

Received 28 July 2008; received in revised form 12 October 2008; accepted 4 November 2008.

Aim

To determine hospital consultants' preferences for the format and content of radiology reports.

Materials and methods

Ninety-nine questionnaires were sent to consultant staff with responsibility for requesting ultrasound examinations. The participants were invited to rank a variety of hypothetical reports in order of preference. They were also asked whether they felt other commonly included features of a radiology report were of value. Rank data were analysed by the Friedman statistic, Fisher's multiple comparisons least significant difference test, and the Kemeny–Young method.

Results

Forty-nine responses were received. There was a preference for more detailed reports that included a clinical comment by the radiologist, for both normal and abnormal results (p<0.05). Reports presented in tables were preferred. The combination of a detailed tabular report with a radiologist's comment was the most popular single structure, preferred by 43% of respondents for normal reports and 51% for abnormal reports.

Conclusion

Detailed reports with a radiologists' comment are preferred to briefer reports, even for normal examinations. Tabular reports are preferred to prose, with the combination of a detailed report presented in a tabular format accompanied by a radiologist's comment being the most preferred style.

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0009-9260(08)00493-5

doi:10.1016/j.crad.2008.11.009

Clinical Radiology
Volume 64, Issue 4 , Pages 386-394, April 2009