Journals / Fırat Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Tıp Dergisi / 2010 / Cilt: 24 - Sayı: 3

A Short guide towards ımproving the radiologic reports

Radyoloji raporlarının değerini artırmak için kısa bir rehber

Pages
209–214
Publication Date
2022-11-05
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In this article, we review the suggestions about the format, content and medicolegal issues in radiology reporting, which may improve the value of radiologist and the overall quality of the health services.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Radiologic reports serve as an important communication tool between the radiologists and the clinicians.
📊
Key Findings & Data:However, despite the previously established standards by the international organizations, the basic requirements in the format and content of the reports are often neglected by the radiologist.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In this article, we review the suggestions about the format, content and medicolegal issues in radiology reporting, which may improve the value of radiologist and the overall quality of the health services.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Radiologic reports serve as an important communication tool between the radiologists and the clinicians. However, despite the previously established standards by the international organizations, the basic requirements in the format and content of the reports are often neglected by the radiologist. In addition to that, archiving, timeliness and urgent conveying of the critical findings continue to be medicolegal problems. In this article, we review the suggestions about the format, content and medicolegal issues in radiology reporting, which may improve the value of radiologist and the overall quality of the health services.

Özet

Radyoloji raporları radyologlar ile klinisyenler arasında önemli bir iletişim aracıdır. Bununla birlikte, raporun biçimi ve içeriği konusunda uluslararası organizasyonlar tarafından tanımlanan standartlara uygunluğu konusu radyologlar tarafından ihmal edilmektedir. Buna ek olarak arşivleme, raporun zamanında çıkarılması ve kritik bulguların hızlıca iletilmesi konuları tıp hukuku açısından sorun oluşturmayı sürdürmektedir. Bu yazıda rapor biçimi, içeriği ve tıp hukukunun ilgilendiren konulardaki önerileri gözden geçirdik. Bu öneriler radyologun değerini ve sağlık hizmetlerinin toplam kalitesini artırmaya katkıda bulunacaktır.

🔖

Cite This Article

BAYKARA, M., ERDOĞAN, N., EREN, C. S., YEŞİLDERE, F. B. (2022). A Short guide towards ımproving the radiologic reports. Fırat Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Tıp Dergisi, Cilt: 24 - Sayı: 3, 209–214. https://ajindex.com/articles/650617

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (17)

  1. Robert L, Cohen MD, Jennings GS. A new method of evaluating the quality of radiology reports. Acad Radiol 2006; 13: 241-248
  2. Gagliardi RA. The evolution of the X-ray report. AJR 1995; 164: 501-502
  3. Clinger NJ, Hunter TB, Hillman BJ. Radiology reporting: attitudes of referring physicians. Radiology 1988; 169: 825–826
  4. Gunderman R, Ambrosius WT, Cohen M. Radiology reporting in an academic children’s hospital: what referring physicians think. Pediatr Radiol 2000; 30: 307-314
  5. Rockoff SD, Davis DO, Gaskill JW. Physician attitude toward the competence of general diagnostic radiologists: survey and implications. AJR 1983; 140: 639-648
  6. Sistrom C, Lanier L, Mancuso A. Reporting instruction for radiology residents. Acad Radiol 2004; 11: 76-84
  7. American College of Radiology. ACR practice guideline for communication of diagnostic imaging findings (Revised in 2005). http://www.acr.org/SecondaryMainMenuCategories/quality _safety/guidelines/dx/comm_diag_rad.aspx 20.07.2010 8. Lev MH, Rhea JJ, Bramson RT. Avoidance of variability and error in radiology. Lancet 1999; 354: 949-951
  8. Robinson PJ, Wilson D, Coral A, Murphy A, Verow P. Variation between experienced observers in the interpretation of accident and emergency radiographs. Br J Radiol 1999; 72: 323-330
  9. Ridley LJ. Guide to the radiology report. Austral Radiol 2002; 46: 366-369
  10. Albertyn LE. Reporting: the neglected aspect of the new imaging modalities. Australas Radiol 1991; 35: 340-342
  11. Naik SS, Hanbidge A, Wilson SR. Radiology reports: examining radiologist and clinician preferences regarding style and content. AJR 2001; 176: 591-598
  12. Plumb AAO, Grieve FM, Khan SH. Survey of hospital clinicians’ preferences regarding the format of radiology reports. Clin Radiol 2009; 64: 386-394
  13. Baker JA, Kornguth PJ, Floyd CE. Breast imaging reporting and data system standardized mammography lexicon: observer variability in lesion description. AJR 1996; 166: 773-778
  14. Radiological Society of North America. RadLex. http://www.radlex.org 20.07.2010 16. Lafortune M, Breton G, Baudouin J. The radiological report: what is useful for the referring physician? J Can Assoc Radiol 1988; 39: 140-143
  15. Friedman PJ. Radiology reporting and structure. AJR 1983; 140: 171-172
  16. Berlin L. Malpractice issues in radiology. Pitfalls of the vague radiology report. AJR 2000; 174: 1511-1518
  17. Hobby JL, Tom BDM, Todd C, Bearcroft PWP, Dixon AK. Communication of doubt and certainty in radiologica