Advanced search
1 file | 154.95 KB

Structured reporting: if, why, when, how—and at what expense?: results of a focus group meeting of radiology professionals from eight countries

(2012) INSIGHTS INTO IMAGING. 3(3). p.295-302
Author
Organization
Abstract
Purpose: To determine why, despite growing evidence that radiologists and referring physicians prefer structured reporting (SR) to free text (FT) reporting, SR has not been widely adopted in most radiology departments. Methods: A focus group was formed consisting of 11 radiology professionals from eight countries. Eight topics were submitted for discussion. The meeting was videotaped, transcribed, and analyzed according to the principles of qualitative healthcare research. Results: Perceived advantages of SR were facilitation of research, easy comparison, discouragement of ambiguous reports, embedded links to images, highlighting important findings, not having to dictate text nobody will read, and automatic translation of teleradiology reports. Being compelled to report within a rigid frame was judged unacceptable. Personal convictions appeared to have high emotional value. It was felt that other healthcare stakeholders would impose SR without regard to what radiologists thought of it. If the industry were to provide ready-made templates for selected examinations, most radiologists would use them. Conclusion: If radiologists can be convinced of the advantages of SR and the risks associated with failing to participate actively in its implementation, they will take a positive stand. The industry should propose technology allowing SR without compromising accuracy, completeness, workflows, and cost-benefit balance.
Keywords
Structured reporting, Advantages, Radiology, Qualitative healthcare research, Obstacles

Downloads

  • 2012 Bosmans I3 Focus group.pdf
    • full text
    • |
    • open access
    • |
    • PDF
    • |
    • 154.95 KB

Citation

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

Chicago
Bosmans, Jan, Lieve Peremans, Maurizio Menni, Arthur De Schepper, Philippe Duyck, and Paul Parizel. 2012. “Structured Reporting: If, Why, When, How—and at What Expense?: Results of a Focus Group Meeting of Radiology Professionals from Eight Countries.” Insights into Imaging 3 (3): 295–302.
APA
Bosmans, J., Peremans, L., Menni, M., De Schepper, A., Duyck, P., & Parizel, P. (2012). Structured reporting: if, why, when, how—and at what expense?: results of a focus group meeting of radiology professionals from eight countries. INSIGHTS INTO IMAGING, 3(3), 295–302.
Vancouver
1.
Bosmans J, Peremans L, Menni M, De Schepper A, Duyck P, Parizel P. Structured reporting: if, why, when, how—and at what expense?: results of a focus group meeting of radiology professionals from eight countries. INSIGHTS INTO IMAGING. 2012;3(3):295–302.
MLA
Bosmans, Jan, Lieve Peremans, Maurizio Menni, et al. “Structured Reporting: If, Why, When, How—and at What Expense?: Results of a Focus Group Meeting of Radiology Professionals from Eight Countries.” INSIGHTS INTO IMAGING 3.3 (2012): 295–302. Print.
@article{5776926,
  abstract     = {Purpose: To determine why, despite growing evidence that radiologists and referring physicians prefer structured reporting (SR) to free text (FT) reporting, SR has not been widely adopted in most radiology departments.
Methods: A focus group was formed consisting of 11 radiology professionals from eight countries. Eight topics were submitted for discussion. The meeting was videotaped, transcribed, and analyzed according to the principles of qualitative healthcare research.
Results: Perceived advantages of SR were facilitation of research, easy comparison, discouragement of ambiguous reports, embedded links to images, highlighting important findings, not having to dictate text nobody will read, and automatic translation of teleradiology reports. Being compelled to report within a rigid frame was judged unacceptable. Personal convictions appeared to have high emotional value. It was felt that other healthcare stakeholders would impose SR without regard to what radiologists thought of it. If the industry were to provide ready-made templates for selected examinations, most radiologists would use them.
Conclusion: If radiologists can be convinced of the advantages of SR and the risks associated with failing to participate actively in its implementation, they will take a positive stand. The industry should propose technology allowing SR without compromising accuracy, completeness, workflows, and cost-benefit balance.},
  author       = {Bosmans, Jan and Peremans, Lieve and Menni, Maurizio and De Schepper, Arthur and Duyck, Philippe and Parizel, Paul},
  issn         = {1869-4101},
  journal      = {INSIGHTS INTO IMAGING},
  keywords     = {Structured reporting,Advantages,Radiology,Qualitative healthcare research,Obstacles},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {3},
  pages        = {295--302},
  title        = {Structured reporting: if, why, when, how—and at what expense?: results of a focus group meeting of radiology professionals from eight countries},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13244-012-0148-1},
  volume       = {3},
  year         = {2012},
}

Altmetric
View in Altmetric