Advanced search
1 file | 139.67 KB

Communication between general practitioners and radiologists: opinions, experience, promises, pitfalls

Jan Bosmans (UGent) , Diego Schrans (UGent) , Dirk Avonts (UGent) and Jan De Maeseneer (UGent)
(2014) JBR-BTR. 97(6). p.325-330
Author
Organization
Abstract
Purpose. Studies encompassing the views and aspirations of general practitioners (GPs) concerning the radiology report are rare. We present the results of a large-scale survey among GPs in Flanders, Belgium, and examine its implications for the communication between radiologists and GPs. Materials and methods. GPs were invited by e-mail to participate in a survey on the radiology report. Respondents could state their degree of agreement with 46 statements. Besides that, they could freely make suggestions to improve the report. Quantitative results were examined to determine majority convictions. Free text suggestions were searched for motives and convictions. Results. Of 1323 GPs invited, 282 completed forms were prepared for analysis. 96.8% considered the report an indispensable tool. 85.5% were satisfied with it. Itemized reporting of complex examinations was favoured by a very large majority. 83 GPs (29.4%) made suggestions for improvement. Much emphasis was put upon the clinical role of the radiologist. The need to mark key images, to mention meaningful normal findings, to structure the report and to facilitate communication was also frequently mentioned. Conclusion. GPs expect the radiologist to think as a clinician and offer clinical answers. An automated electronic information chain contribute to realize this objective but direct communication should always remain possible.
Keywords
radiology report, informatics, general practice, communication, radiology, PHYSICIANS

Downloads

  • (...).pdf
    • full text
    • |
    • UGent only
    • |
    • PDF
    • |
    • 139.67 KB

Citation

Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:

Chicago
Bosmans, Jan, Diego Schrans, Dirk Avonts, and Jan De Maeseneer. 2014. “Communication Between General Practitioners and Radiologists: Opinions, Experience, Promises, Pitfalls.” Jbr-btr 97 (6): 325–330.
APA
Bosmans, J., Schrans, D., Avonts, D., & De Maeseneer, J. (2014). Communication between general practitioners and radiologists: opinions, experience, promises, pitfalls. JBR-BTR, 97(6), 325–330.
Vancouver
1.
Bosmans J, Schrans D, Avonts D, De Maeseneer J. Communication between general practitioners and radiologists: opinions, experience, promises, pitfalls. JBR-BTR. 2014;97(6):325–30.
MLA
Bosmans, Jan, Diego Schrans, Dirk Avonts, et al. “Communication Between General Practitioners and Radiologists: Opinions, Experience, Promises, Pitfalls.” JBR-BTR 97.6 (2014): 325–330. Print.
@article{5720453,
  abstract     = {Purpose. Studies encompassing the views and aspirations of general practitioners (GPs) concerning the radiology report are rare. We present the results of a large-scale survey among GPs in Flanders, Belgium, and examine its implications for the communication between radiologists and GPs.
Materials and methods. GPs were invited by e-mail to participate in a survey on the radiology report. Respondents could state their degree of agreement with 46 statements. Besides that, they could freely make suggestions to improve the report. Quantitative results were examined to determine majority convictions. Free text suggestions were searched for motives and convictions.
Results. Of 1323 GPs invited, 282 completed forms were prepared for analysis. 96.8% considered the report an indispensable tool. 85.5% were satisfied with it. Itemized reporting of complex examinations was favoured by a very large majority. 83 GPs (29.4%) made suggestions for improvement. Much emphasis was put upon the clinical role of the radiologist. The need to mark key images, to mention meaningful normal findings, to structure the report and to facilitate communication was also frequently mentioned.
Conclusion. GPs expect the radiologist to think as a clinician and offer clinical answers. An automated electronic information chain contribute to realize this objective but direct communication should always remain possible.},
  author       = {Bosmans, Jan and Schrans, Diego and Avonts, Dirk and De Maeseneer, Jan},
  issn         = {1780-2393},
  journal      = {JBR-BTR},
  keywords     = {radiology report,informatics,general practice,communication,radiology,PHYSICIANS},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {6},
  pages        = {325--330},
  title        = {Communication between general practitioners and radiologists: opinions, experience, promises, pitfalls},
  volume       = {97},
  year         = {2014},
}

Web of Science
Times cited: