Improving radiologic communication in oncology: a single-centre experience with structured reporting for cancer patients.

Diagnostic imaging Image interpretation (computer-assisted) Medical oncology Neoplasms

Journal

Insights into imaging
ISSN: 1869-4101
Titre abrégé: Insights Imaging
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101532453

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
29 Sep 2020
Historique:
received: 14 07 2020
accepted: 03 09 2020
entrez: 29 9 2020
pubmed: 30 9 2020
medline: 30 9 2020
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Our aim was to develop a structured reporting concept (structured oncology report, SOR) for general follow-up assessment of cancer patients in clinical routine. Furthermore, we analysed the report quality of SOR compared to conventional reports (CR) as assessed by referring oncologists. SOR was designed to provide standardised layout, tabulated tumour burden documentation and standardised conclusion using uniform terminology. A software application for reporting was programmed to ensure consistency of layout and vocabulary and to facilitate utilisation of SOR. Report quality was analysed for 25 SOR and 25 CR retrospectively by 6 medical oncologists using a 7-point scale (score 1 representing the best score) for 6 questionnaire items addressing different elements of report quality and overall satisfaction. A score of ≤ 3 was defined as a positive rating. In the first year after full implementation, 7471 imaging examinations were reported using SOR. The proportion of SOR in relation to all oncology reports increased from 49 to 95% within a few months. Report quality scores were better for SOR for each questionnaire item (p < 0.001 each). Averaged over all questionnaire item scores were 1.98 ± 1.22 for SOR and 3.05 ± 1.93 for CR (p < 0.001). The overall satisfaction score was 2.15 ± 1.32 for SOR and 3.39 ± 2.08 for CR (p < 0.001). The proportion of positive ratings was higher for SOR (89% versus 67%; p < 0.001). Department-wide structured reporting for follow-up imaging performed for assessment of anticancer treatment efficacy is feasible using a dedicated software application. Satisfaction of referring oncologist with report quality is superior for structured reports.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32990824
doi: 10.1186/s13244-020-00907-1
pii: 10.1186/s13244-020-00907-1
pmc: PMC7524991
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

106

Références

Radiology. 2014 Jan;270(1):248-60
pubmed: 24354378
Insights Imaging. 2013 Apr;4(2):143-6
pubmed: 23397518
Educ Psychol Meas. 2016 Aug;76(4):609-637
pubmed: 29795880
Insights Imaging. 2018 Feb;9(1):1-7
pubmed: 29460129
Radiology. 2015 Feb;274(2):464-72
pubmed: 25286323
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015 Sep;205(3):584-8
pubmed: 26295645
Rofo. 2019 Jan;191(1):33-39
pubmed: 30103236
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2018 May;55(5):679-687
pubmed: 29627139
Insights Imaging. 2020 Feb 4;11(1):10
pubmed: 32020396
Radiology. 2008 Dec;249(3):739-47
pubmed: 19011178
Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 2017 Jul - Aug;46(4):295-299
pubmed: 28104315
J Clin Epidemiol. 1990;43(6):551-8
pubmed: 2189948
BMC Med Imaging. 2018 Jul 3;18(1):20
pubmed: 29970014
Eur J Cancer. 2009 Jan;45(2):228-47
pubmed: 19097774
PLoS One. 2019 Feb 19;14(2):e0212444
pubmed: 30779810
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018 Apr;210(4):766-774
pubmed: 29470153
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001 Mar;176(3):591-8
pubmed: 11222186
Eur Radiol. 2019 Sep;29(9):5121-5128
pubmed: 30796574
J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2009 Aug;53(4):345-52
pubmed: 19695040
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015 Sep;205(3):W233-43
pubmed: 26295661
J Am Coll Radiol. 2010 Jul;7(7):501-6
pubmed: 20630384
Insights Imaging. 2011 Apr;2(2):93-96
pubmed: 22347937
Eur Radiol. 2017 Oct;27(10):4110-4119
pubmed: 28289942
Eur Radiol. 2018 Sep;28(9):3702-3709
pubmed: 29600475
Radiology. 2013 Apr;267(1):240-50
pubmed: 23329657
Acad Radiol. 2014 Jun;21(6):785-96
pubmed: 24809319
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000 Feb 2;92(3):205-16
pubmed: 10655437
Eur Radiol. 2018 Oct;28(10):4274-4280
pubmed: 29679214
J Am Coll Radiol. 2017 Sep;14(9):1206-1211
pubmed: 28483546
Insights Imaging. 2012 Feb;3(1):1-3
pubmed: 22695992
Radiology. 2011 Jul;260(1):174-81
pubmed: 21518775
Biometrics. 1977 Mar;33(1):159-74
pubmed: 843571
Invest Radiol. 2017 Apr;52(4):232-239
pubmed: 27861230
Eur Radiol. 2017 Jan;27(1):424-430
pubmed: 27137649
J Am Coll Radiol. 2008 May;5(5):626-9
pubmed: 18442766
Eur Radiol. 2018 Apr;28(4):1465-1475
pubmed: 29043428

Auteurs

Tim Frederik Weber (TF)

Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 410, 69121, Heidelberg, Germany. tim.weber@med.uni-heidelberg.de.

Manuela Spurny (M)

Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 410, 69121, Heidelberg, Germany.

Felix Christian Hasse (FC)

Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 410, 69121, Heidelberg, Germany.

Oliver Sedlaczek (O)

Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 410, 69121, Heidelberg, Germany.

Georg Martin Haag (GM)

Department of Medical Oncology, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.

Christoph Springfeld (C)

Department of Medical Oncology, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.

Theresa Mokry (T)

Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 410, 69121, Heidelberg, Germany.

Dirk Jäger (D)

Department of Medical Oncology, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.

Hans-Ulrich Kauczor (HU)

Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 410, 69121, Heidelberg, Germany.

Anne Katrin Berger (AK)

Department of Medical Oncology, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.

Classifications MeSH