Fig 3 - uploaded by Richard Frankel
Content may be subject to copyright.
Pie charts showing the relative frequencies with which participants chose different timing options for online access. The exact wording for timing choices is given in Table 1. The 3 charts show participants' most preferred timing for access to reports for the nearly normal scenario, the seriously abnormal scenario, and the indeterminate scenario.
Source publication
The aim of this study was to seek physicians' perspectives on radiology reporting systems, so that reporting systems can begin to be reorganized and made more patient centered by giving patients greater access to their personal health information.
Focus-group methodology was used to explore physicians' views on direct patient access to radiologic t...
Context in source publication
Context 1
... study was designed to test whether the participants' preferences for receiving test results might vary as a function of report contents, especially given realistic caveats about limitations on the availability of their regular physicians to discuss results at the time of access. Participants chose preferred timing for each of the hypothetical clinical simulations (Figure 3). For each of the 3 scenarios, immediate access was the most often preferred option, and 80% of participants wanted online access within 3 days. ...
Citations
... However, many radiology departments tend to prioritize diagnostic efficiency over patient communication [5,6]. Radiology reports, which are the primary communication channel between radiologists and patients, are typically difficult for patients to comprehend, even with guidance from nonradiology clinicians [7,8]. Studies have shown that most patients have difficulty understanding medical terms and instructions on radiology reports [9], with over 80% of patients desiring more direct contact with their radiologists [10]. ...
GPT-4 with vision (GPT-4V) is capable of processing images and can discuss its findings conversationally. Its ease of use may lead patients and clinicians to use it for interpreting medical images. In our assessment, GPT-4V had limited overall accuracy and precision when interpreting a set of 10 radiological images covering a variety of modalities and pathologies. GPT-4V’s image interpretation performance was inconsistent both between images and within multiple interpretations of the same image. Its accuracy may be degraded with the addition of image artifacts. GPT-4V is prone to hallucinations, which may be exaggerated by misleading prompts, on-image texts, file names and annotation markers. GPT-4V also lacks transparency as to how it interprets images. While unsuitable for medical image interpretation, GPT-4V may help with patient communication by translating radiology reports into plain language summaries.
... Because radiology reports are intended for communication between medical professionals, patients often have difficulty understanding the medical jargon contained in these results [7]. Without a radiologist or referring provider to explain the results, the lack of understanding of radiology reports may cause the patient unnecessary anxiety [8]. ...
Radiology reports typically contain complex, technical language that can pose a barrier to patients, especially to those with limited educational attainment or literacy skills. PORTER—the Patient-Oriented Radiology Reporter system—incorporates a lay-language glossary to help patients understand radiology report content. The system displays illustrations and definitions of radiology terms when viewing a report. A large U.S. health system integrated PORTER into the patient portal of its electronic health record (EHR) system and evaluated its use during a 7-month study period. Of 4,664 concepts defined in its glossary, 4,607 (98%) were readable at the 8th-grade level. Of 10,859 patients who completed a single-question survey, 6,947 (64%) found the system to be helpful or very helpful. A system that integrates illustrations and lay-language definitions of medical terms into a patient portal can help patients better understand the reports of their radiology examinations. Such a system has potential to improve communication for patients with limited health literacy.
... A systematic review by Nickel et al. found that the use of medical jargon contributes to greater patient anxiety, perceptions of increased severity of the ailment, and increases inclination for more aggressive treatments [29], creating concern for many referring providers [30]. This concern is amplified given the increasingly immediate access to imaging reports. ...
Diagnostic imaging reports are generally written with a target audience of other providers. As a result, the reports are written with medical jargon and technical detail to ensure accurate communication. With implementation of the 21st Century Cures Act, patients have greater and quicker access to their imaging reports, but these reports are still written above the comprehension level of the average patient. Consequently, many patients have requested reports to be conveyed in language accessible to them. Numerous studies have shown that improving patient understanding of their condition results in better outcomes, so driving comprehension of imaging reports is essential. Summary statements, second reports, and the inclusion of the radiologist’s phone number have been proposed, but these solutions have implications for radiologist workflow. Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to simplify imaging reports without significant disruptions. Many AI technologies have been applied to radiology reports in the past for various clinical and research purposes, but patient focused solutions have largely been ignored. New natural language processing technologies and large language models (LLMs) have the potential to improve patient understanding of their imaging reports. However, LLMs are a nascent technology and significant research is required before LLM-driven report simplification is used in patient care.
... This can enhance patient's understanding of the treatment steps, which can helps raise the efficiency of treatment and a better understanding of the health condition can reduce the level of anxiety [21,22]. Some studies have shown that radiologists fear that patients' current lack of understanding of the radiology reports could increase anxiety [23,24]. This concern raises the important issue of the extent of the gap between patient understanding and the current radiology report design. ...
... A study showed that 51% of patients had a strong desire to obtain their radiology reports without obstacles or challenges [8]. while other studies found that doctors did not mind giving patients their radiology reports; however, doctors feared that patients would not understand the report content properly [23,24]. Some studies have worked to determine the level of patient satisfaction with current radiology reports [8,32]. ...
Our objective is to investigate patient needs and understand information gaps in radiology reports using patient questions that were posted on online discussion forums. We leveraged online question and answer platforms to collect questions posted by patients to understand current gaps and patient needs. We retrieved six hundred fifty-nine (659) questions using the following sites: Yahoo Answers, Reddit.com, Quora, and Wiki Answers. The questions retrieved were analyzed and the major themes and topics were identified. The questions retrieved were classified into eight major themes. The themes were related to the following topics: radiology report, safety, price, preparation, procedure, meaning, medical staff, and patient portal. Among the 659 questions, 35.50% were concerned with the radiology report. The most common question topics in the radiology report focused on patient understanding of the radiology report (62 of 234 [26.49%]), image visualization (53 of 234 [22.64%]), and report representation (46 of 234 [19.65%]). We also found that most patients were concerned about understanding the MRI report (32%; n = 143) compared with the other imaging modalities ( n = 434). Using online discussion forums, we discussed major unmet patient needs and information gaps in radiology reports. These issues could be improved to enhance radiology design in the future.
... Our finding that respondents wanted reports to be understandable to the lay person is also consistent with the results of other studies. 45 46 Although clinicians may have reservations about allowing patients direct access to their medical information, 47 there is already increased availability and use of patient portals 48 and in many health systems this is standard practice. 49 In organisations where this has occurred, radiology reports are one of the most common items reviewed by patients accessing their information. ...
Objectives
To investigate (1) self-reported societal comprehension of common and usually non-serious terms found in lumbar spine imaging reports and (2) its relationship to perceived seriousness, likely persistence of low back pain (LBP), fear of movement, back beliefs and history and intensity of LBP.
Design
Cross-sectional online survey of the general public.
Setting
Five English-speaking countries: UK, USA, Canada, New Zealand and Australia.
Participants
Adults (age >18 years) with or without a history of LBP recruited in April 2019 with quotas for country, age and gender.
Primary and secondary outcome measures
Self-reported understanding of 14 terms (annular fissure, disc bulge, disc degeneration, disc extrusion, disc height loss, disc protrusion, disc signal loss, facet joint degeneration, high intensity zone, mild canal stenosis, Modic changes, nerve root contact, spondylolisthesis and spondylosis) commonly found in lumbar spine imaging reports. For each term, we also elicited worry about its seriousness, and whether its presence would indicate pain persistence and prompt fear of movement.
Results
From 774 responses, we included 677 (87.5%) with complete and valid responses. 577 (85%) participants had a current or past history of LBP of whom 251 (44%) had received lumbar spine imaging. Self-reported understanding of all terms was poor. At best, 235 (35%) reported understanding the term ‘disc degeneration’, while only 71 (10.5%) reported understanding the term ‘Modic changes’. For all terms, a moderate to large proportion of participants (range 59%–71%), considered they indicated a serious back problem, that pain might persist (range 52%–71%) and they would be fearful of movement (range 42%–57%).
Conclusion
Common and usually non-serious terms in lumbar spine imaging reports are poorly understood by the general population and may contribute to the burden of LBP.
Trial registration number
ACTRN12619000545167.
... The information currently provided is not easily understood by patients, which is an issue for many radiologists and referencing physicians (RPs). These medical professionals are concerned that patients who can access these reports may experience greater anxiety and engage in a time-consuming follow-up process with their RPs to answer their questions and obtain a greater understanding of the report content [13,[28][29][30]38,41,44,52]. To evaluate these issues, many points must be taken into account. ...
... Patient web portals generally need a lot of work to improve the limitations of these platforms [52]. This paper focuses on access to full radiology reports in web portals and, therefore, will concentrate on the limitations of the portal regarding this issue. ...
... This paper focuses on access to full radiology reports in web portals and, therefore, will concentrate on the limitations of the portal regarding this issue. Many studies mention that there are issues and limitations in the radiology section of patient web portals [2,24,52]. There are many physicians, radiologists, and patients who are dissatisfied with the radiology portion of the web portal [52]. ...
The aim of this study discusses the gap between the patient web portal and providing a full radiology report. A literature review was conducted to examine radiologists, physicians, and patients’ opinions and preferences of providing patients with online access radiology reports. The databases searched were Pubmed and Google Scholar and the initial search included 927 studies. After review, 47 studies were included in the study. We identified several themes, including patients’ understanding of radiology reports and radiological images, as well as the need for decreasing the turnaround time for reports availability. The existing radiology reports written for physicians are not suited for patients. Further studies are needed to guide and inform the design of patient friendly radiology reports. One of the ways that can be used to fill the gap between patients and radiology reports is using social media sites.
... Reporting practices in radiology represent a critical component of the patient's medical record in both the inpatient and outpatient settings. There has been considerable interest within the radiology literature to evaluate the efficiency of radiology reporting from the standpoint of the referring physician, patient, and radiologist [1][2][3][4]. Specific attention has been given to the matter of how and by whom results are communicated to the patient, with the recent emphasis on autonomy and patient centeredness. ...
... Despite the advent of electronic medical records and implementation of patient portals, patients remain generally dissatisfied with how they receive their medical imaging results [1][2][3][4]. Patients want access to relatively detailed information with minimal delay [5][6][7]. Recent literature demonstrates that patients prefer to receive their imaging results directly from the referring physician and would like both the report and the original images to be available to them [6,[8][9]. ...
Objective
The goal of this survey-based study is to explore patients’ knowledge of and expectations for radiologists in the outpatient setting.
Materials and Methods
A comprehensive survey was distributed to adult patients undergoing knee magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) over a one-year period from September 2015 through August 2016 at an urban, quaternary care academic medical center.
Results
The survey results demonstrate that only a subset of patients undergoing knee MRI at the institution during the survey period are aware of the role of the radiologist, which is a well-documented fact described in the literature. Approximately one-third of patients expected to meet the radiologist during their visit to the department of radiology to undergo a knee MRI. The vast majority of patients surveyed wanted to be able to contact the person who read their exam, but only one patient actually contacted the radiologist during the study period.
Conclusion
While the vast majority of surveyed patients wanted to be able to contact the person who read their knee MRI, only one patient actually did reach out to the radiologist to discuss findings. However, six of 36 follow-up respondents reported that they had contacted the person “who interpreted/read your exam:” two in person, one by email, three by phone, and one by other. Survey results demonstrated that only a subset of patients correctly understood the role of the radiologist (46% in the 1st survey and 63% in the 2nd survey, which does not represent a statistically significant difference), which suggests that perhaps the patients did have a conversation with a member of the radiology department staff whom they believed was actually the radiologist. The fact that patients expressed a desire to communicate with the person reading their reports, but then did not take advantage of the opportunity to contact the radiologist, suggests that the issue is more complicated than just a lack of a pathway for communication between patients and radiologists. Perhaps the lack of a clear understanding of the role of the radiologist hinders patients from contacting radiologists, as they feel uncertain as to whom they are actually attempting to reach. Or perhaps patients are sufficiently reassured by having a means through which they could contact the radiologist and do not require the actual communication in order to feel comfortable. There remains a significant amount of work to be done in understanding the barriers in patient-radiologist communications.
... 10,11 However, there exist divergent reports about the effects that PAEHRs have on healthcare professionals and their daily work. 8,9,[13][14][15][16][17][18][19] A review identifies no negative effects for healthcare professionals who met with either outpatients or inpatients that could access the EHR. 8 These effects are also reflected in a study of a major project, where few physicians reported that they perceived an increased workload, because visits took longer time or they received more questions from their patients. ...
... 9 Other studies report on concerns, from both primary care physicians and specialist physicians, about patients becoming anxious or misinterpreting the content of the record. [13][14][15][16][17] However, there are studies that report that workload concerns, expressed prior to the system implementation, diminished when the service was actually put into practice. 9,18 In general, studies that describe the benefits of PAEHR and the effects on healthcare professionals seem to focus on multi-payer or market-based financial systems. ...
... In line with previous studies, [14][15][16][17] the results from the workshop, the interviews and the survey reflect concerns about increased patient anxiety and misunderstandings of the information in the EHR. This was especially perceived by healthcare professionals in outpatient clinics, where approximately 50 percent "agreed" or "somewhat agreed" to the statements about patient anxiety, misunderstandings and patients getting upset. ...
In this study, we explore how healthcare professionals in primary care and outpatient clinics perceive the outcomes of giving patients online access to their electronic health records. The study was carried out as a case study and included a workshop, six interviews and a survey that was answered by 146 healthcare professionals. The results indicate that professionals working in primary care perceive that an increase in information-sharing with patients can increase adherence, clarify important information to the patient and allow the patient to quality-control documented information. Professionals at outpatient clinics seem less convinced about the benefits of patient accessible electronic health records and have concerns about how patients manage the information that they are given access to. However, the patient accessible electronic health record has not led to a change in documentation procedures among the majority of the professionals. While the findings can be connected to the context of outpatient clinics and primary care units, other contextual factors might influence the results and more in-depth studies are therefore needed to clarify the concerns.
... Taken together, whereas patients may be able to transport their imaging archive on CDs, our findings strongly suggest that many patients may have difficulty viewing their own imaging studies. Release of imaging studies and radiology reports via an electronic format such as an online patient portal is important to patients because it offers a greater connection between patients, their care, and their primary care team (6,7,(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18). More widespread access to imaging studies also facilitates the process of obtaining second opinions, and therefore allows patients to have greater agency over their medical information. ...
Background: In the United States, patients have the right to access their protected health information. However, to the knowledge of the authors, no study has evaluated the patient request process and the barriers to patient access of their radiology images. Purpose: To assess U.S. hospital compliance with federal regulations and patient ease of access to imaging studies. Materials and Methods: In this cross-sectional study conducted from June 6 to December 3, 2018, 80 U.S. hospitals were contacted by telephone to determine their patient request process for imaging studies. A scripted interview was used to simulate the patient experience in requesting imaging studies. Hospitals were compared in terms of formats of release (compact disc [CD] via pick up, CD via mail, e-mail, online patient portal, or other online access), departments from which cine files can be requested, fees, and processing times. Results: All 80 hospitals stated that they could provide imaging studies on CDs. Only six (8%) hospitals provided imaging studies via e-mail and three (4%) via an online patient portal. Requests for cine files were fulfilled by a department separate from diagnostic radiology in 47 of 80 (59%) hospitals. Patient charges ranged from $0 to $75 for a single CD, no charge to $6 via e-mail, and no charge via an online patient portal. Fifty-nine (74%) hospitals stated that they could release copies within 24 hours, 10 (13%) within 2-5 days, eight (10%) within 5-10 days, and three (4%) within 10-30 days from request date. Imaging studies from outside of the diagnostic radiology department may need to be requested through the departments that performed the study. Conclusion: This study demonstrated that although fees and processing times are compliant with federal regulations, patient access to imaging studies is limited primarily to compact disc format. The request process is also complicated for patients because of dispersion of imaging studies across departments.
... One efficient way to achieve this goal is to build online portals [18,19]. Arguing that online portal may increase patient anxiety is valid [19]. ...
... One efficient way to achieve this goal is to build online portals [18,19]. Arguing that online portal may increase patient anxiety is valid [19]. However, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages significantly. ...
Purpose of Review
To review best practices to improve the quality of patient service in the field of interventional radiology after performing the procedure.
Recent Findings
The aim of this paper is to highlight aspects of post-procedural care such as effective communication, post-procedural management of the patient, handling of obtained specimens, post-procedural follow-up, tracking outcomes, and education to assist the interventionalist in providing comprehensive quality post-procedural care.
Summary
Post-procedural communication, follow-up, and outcome tracking are essential elements in the quality assurance of an Interventional Radiology service.
