Impact of structured reporting on developing head and neck ultrasound skills.
Data Accuracy
Documentation
/ standards
Forms and Records Control
Head
/ diagnostic imaging
Head and Neck Neoplasms
/ diagnostic imaging
Humans
Interdisciplinary Communication
Medical Records
/ standards
Neck
/ diagnostic imaging
Observer Variation
Reproducibility of Results
Schools, Medical
Students, Medical
Ultrasonography
Head and neck Cancer
Lymphadenopathy
Medical education
Salivary gland diseases
Ultrasonography
Journal
BMC medical education
ISSN: 1472-6920
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Educ
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088679
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 Apr 2019
11 Apr 2019
Historique:
received:
07
11
2018
accepted:
31
03
2019
entrez:
12
4
2019
pubmed:
12
4
2019
medline:
24
9
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Reports of head and neck ultrasound examinations are frequently written by hand as free texts. This is a serious obstacle to the learning process of the modality due to a missing report structure and terminology. Therefore, there is a great inter-observer variability in overall report quality. Aim of the present study was to evaluate the impact of structured reporting on the learning process as indicated by the overall report quality of head and neck ultrasound examinations within medical school education. Following an immersion course on head and neck ultrasound, previously documented images of three common pathologies were handed out to 58 medical students who asked to create both standard free text reports (FTR) and structured reports (SR). A template for structured reporting of head and neck ultrasound examinations was created using a web-based approach. FTRs and SRs were evaluated with regard to overall quality, completeness, required time to completion and readability by two independent raters (Paired Wilcoxon test, 95% CI). Ratings were assessed for inter-rater reliability (Fleiss' kappa). Additionally, a questionnaire was utilized to evaluate user satisfaction. SRs received significantly better ratings in terms of report completeness (97.7% vs. 53.5%, p < 0.001) regarding all items. In addition, pathologies were described in more detail using SRs (70% vs. 51.1%, p < 0.001). Readability was significantly higher in all SRs when compared to FTRs (100% vs. 54.4%, p < 0.001). Mean time to complete was significantly lower (79.6 vs. 205.4 s, p < 0.001) and user satisfaction was significantly higher when using SRs (8.5 vs. 4.1, p < 0.001). Also, inter-rater reliability was very high (Fleiss' kappa 0.93). SRs of head and neck ultrasound examinations provide more detailed information with a better readability in a time-saving manner within medical education. Also, medical students may benefit from SRs in their learning process due to the structured approach and standardized terminology.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Reports of head and neck ultrasound examinations are frequently written by hand as free texts. This is a serious obstacle to the learning process of the modality due to a missing report structure and terminology. Therefore, there is a great inter-observer variability in overall report quality. Aim of the present study was to evaluate the impact of structured reporting on the learning process as indicated by the overall report quality of head and neck ultrasound examinations within medical school education.
METHODS
METHODS
Following an immersion course on head and neck ultrasound, previously documented images of three common pathologies were handed out to 58 medical students who asked to create both standard free text reports (FTR) and structured reports (SR). A template for structured reporting of head and neck ultrasound examinations was created using a web-based approach. FTRs and SRs were evaluated with regard to overall quality, completeness, required time to completion and readability by two independent raters (Paired Wilcoxon test, 95% CI). Ratings were assessed for inter-rater reliability (Fleiss' kappa). Additionally, a questionnaire was utilized to evaluate user satisfaction.
RESULTS
RESULTS
SRs received significantly better ratings in terms of report completeness (97.7% vs. 53.5%, p < 0.001) regarding all items. In addition, pathologies were described in more detail using SRs (70% vs. 51.1%, p < 0.001). Readability was significantly higher in all SRs when compared to FTRs (100% vs. 54.4%, p < 0.001). Mean time to complete was significantly lower (79.6 vs. 205.4 s, p < 0.001) and user satisfaction was significantly higher when using SRs (8.5 vs. 4.1, p < 0.001). Also, inter-rater reliability was very high (Fleiss' kappa 0.93).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
SRs of head and neck ultrasound examinations provide more detailed information with a better readability in a time-saving manner within medical education. Also, medical students may benefit from SRs in their learning process due to the structured approach and standardized terminology.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30971248
doi: 10.1186/s12909-019-1538-6
pii: 10.1186/s12909-019-1538-6
pmc: PMC6458758
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
102Références
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005 Sep;185(3):804-12
pubmed: 16120938
Radiographics. 2006 May-Jun;26(3):745-63
pubmed: 16702452
Radiographics. 2006 Nov-Dec;26(6):1595-7
pubmed: 17102038
J Am Coll Radiol. 2008 May;5(5):626-9
pubmed: 18442766
Radiology. 2008 Dec;249(3):739-47
pubmed: 19011178
Radiology. 2009 Oct;253(1):74-80
pubmed: 19709993
J Digit Imaging. 2009 Dec;22(6):562-8
pubmed: 19816742
Eur J Radiol. 2010 Jan;73(1):20-5
pubmed: 19914019
Cardiovasc Ultrasound. 2010 Sep 07;8:39
pubmed: 20822530
Clin Radiol. 2011 Nov;66(11):1015-22
pubmed: 21788016
Insights Imaging. 2012 Jun;3(3):295-302
pubmed: 22696090
Insights Imaging. 2013 Feb;4(1):93-102
pubmed: 23247775
J Am Coll Radiol. 2013 Apr;10(4):268-73
pubmed: 23332496
J Digit Imaging. 2014 Oct;27(5):588-93
pubmed: 24865860
Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 2014 Aug;47(4):491-507
pubmed: 25041953
Radiology. 2014 Oct;273(1):7-9
pubmed: 25247561
Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2015 Feb;15(2):207-24
pubmed: 25385488
Radiology. 2014 Dec;273(3):642-5
pubmed: 25420164
Acad Radiol. 2015 Feb;22(2):226-33
pubmed: 25442793
Vestn Rentgenol Radiol. 2014 May-Jun;(3):35-40
pubmed: 25782296
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015 Sep;205(3):584-8
pubmed: 26295645
PLoS One. 2015 Sep 30;10(9):e0139723
pubmed: 26421721
Virchows Arch. 2016 Jun;468(6):639-49
pubmed: 27097810
Invest Radiol. 2017 Apr;52(4):232-239
pubmed: 27861230
J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2017 May - Jun;11(3):188-195
pubmed: 28259629
Eur Radiol. 2017 Oct;27(10):4110-4119
pubmed: 28289942
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2017 Jul;157(1):58-61
pubmed: 28669308
Eur Radiol. 2018 Jan;28(1):308-315
pubmed: 28755055
HNO. 2017 Nov;65(11):939-952
pubmed: 28905170
Cancer Treat Res. 2018;174:59-86
pubmed: 29435837
Insights Imaging. 2018 Feb;9(1):1-7
pubmed: 29460129
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2018 May;55(5):679-687
pubmed: 29627139
BMC Med Imaging. 2018 Jul 3;18(1):20
pubmed: 29970014
Radiographics. 2018 Oct;38(6):1705-1716
pubmed: 30303804
Abdom Radiol (NY). 2019 Mar;44(3):811-820
pubmed: 30519819
Korean J Radiol. 2019 Feb;20(2):246-255
pubmed: 30672164
BMC Med Imaging. 2019 Mar 27;19(1):25
pubmed: 30917796
Biometrics. 1977 Mar;33(1):159-74
pubmed: 843571