4 takeaways from a survey of hundreds of referrers on their radiology report preferences
Radiology researchers are offering insights from the field following a survey of hundreds of referrers, exploring their preferences related to radiology reports.
Members of the Department of Radiology at Goethe University Hospital Frankfurt, Germany, conducted their prospective poll between June and this month. They reached a total of 258 practicing physicians, including internists (93), surgeons (90) and general practitioners (75).
Radiology reports play a crucial role in decision-making, but clarity and comprehensiveness are common points of contention, researchers wrote March 23 in the European Journal of Radiology.
“This study emphasizes the importance of radiologists aligning their reports with the needs of referring physicians and [improving] interdisciplinary communication to ensure more accurate and understandable radiology reports,” Dr. Philipp Reschke and co-authors concluded.
The anonymous survey asked referring physicians to gauge their satisfaction with the completeness of reports using a scale of -100 to +100. Respondents gave an average score of 38.4, with surgeons reporting the highest level of dissatisfaction. Internists and surgeons also showed “significantly stronger” preference for reports that used a structured template, rather than the free-text alternative, when compared to general practitioners.
Reschke and colleagues distilled their results into four main takeaways:
- Surgeons and internists prefer concise and structured reporting, while general practitioners favor the free-text alternative.
- Referring physicians identified “determination of diagnosis” as the most frequently missing info in reports, cited by 39% of those surveyed, followed by “recommendations for further diagnostic measures or follow-up examinations” (23%).
- Respondents most frequently selected “radiologists’ lack of understanding of the clinical context” as the primary reason for incomplete reports.
- Nearly 85% of referrers said they’ve found interdisciplinary case conferences to be valuable for enhancing their understanding of radiology reports.
On the latter, Reschke and co-authors believe their results highlight the importance of collaborating with other specialties to ensure reports reflect the referrer’s request. However, they cautioned about the high cost of collaboration, with one 2023 study finding that a single radiology department tallied $1.2 million in unreimbursed costs for multidisciplinary conferences in a year.
“These meetings refine communication between radiologists and referring physicians, reducing medical errors and unnecessary imaging, which in turn lowers associated treatment costs,” the authors wrote. “This proactive approach enhances patient safety and optimizes resource utilization,” they added later. “However, the opportunity costs of these meetings are significant…Despite these financial considerations, the clinical advantages outweigh the disadvantages. To balance clinical benefits with economic sustainability, institutions should explore targeted case discussions and structured meeting formats.”
Marty Stempniak has covered healthcare since 2012, with his byline appearing in the American Hospital Association's member magazine, Modern Healthcare and McKnight's. Prior to that, he wrote about village government and local business for his hometown newspaper in Oak Park, Illinois. He won a Peter Lisagor and Gold EXCEL awards in 2017 for his coverage of the opioid epidemic.