Are structured radiology reports failing physicians?

“They are ‘structured,’ meaning that each report contains the same elements in the same places,” Gunderman wrote. “And they contain all information necessary for coding and billing, enabling the practice to avoid leaving any available revenue uncollected. By some measures, in other words, these reports are just about as good as they could be. And yet, from the point of view of the physicians relying on them to care for patients, they are disappointingly unhelpful.”

Gunderman wrote that “technically correct but clinically unhelpful reports” lose sight of the true meaning of radiology reports, which is to provide “a coherent, well, supported diagnostic impression that directly addresses key patient management questions while accurately reflecting the degree of confidence that the examination itself allows.”

This disconnect creates the impression that radiologists care more about coding and billing information than patient care, according to Gunderman. He added that the reports are “often remarkably unfocused” and address matters in a “checklist-like fashion” instead of delivering helpful insight that can really impact patient care.

“Radiologists need to understand and serve their true constituency—not coders, billers, business managers, or malpractice attorneys, but the physicians and other health professionals who entrust them with the care of their patients,” Gunderman concluded. “A radiology report is less a payment mechanism than an opportunity to enhance patient care.”