Publication

Perception of radiology reporting efficacy by neurologists in general and university hospitals

Olthof, A. W., de Groot, J. C., Zorgdrager, A. N., Callenbach, P. M. C. & van Ooijen, P. M. A., Jul-2018, In : Clinical radiology. 73, 7, p. 675.e1-675.e7 7 p.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Copy link to clipboard

Documents

  • Perception of radiology reporting efficacy by neurologists in general and university hospitals

    Final publisher's version, 255 KB, PDF document

DOI

AIM: To investigate how neurologists perceive the value of the radiology report and to analyse the relation with the neurologists own expertise in radiology and the level of subspecialisation of radiologists.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: A web-based survey was distributed to neurologists. The level of subspecialisation was assessed by the percentage of fellowship-trained radiologists and the percentage of radiologists that were members of the Dutch Society of Neuroradiology.

RESULTS: Most neurologists interpret all computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies themselves, and their self-confidence in making correct interpretations is high. Residents gave higher scores than neurologists for "Radiologist report answers the question" (p=0.039) and for "Radiologist reports give helpful advice" (p=0.001). Neurologists from university hospitals stated more frequently that the report answered their questions than neurologists from general hospitals (p=0.008). The general appreciation for radiology reports was higher for neurologists from university hospitals than from general hospitals (8.2 versus 7.2; p=0.003). Radiologists at university hospitals have a higher level of subspecialisation than those at general hospitals.

CONCLUSION: Subspecialisation of radiologists leads to higher quality of radiology reporting as perceived by neurologists. Because of their expertise in radiology, neurologists are valuable sources of feedback for radiologists. Paying attention to the clinical questions and giving advice tailored to the needs of the referring physicians are opportunities to improve radiology reporting.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)675.e1-675.e7
Number of pages7
JournalClinical radiology
Volume73
Issue number7
Early online date3-Apr-2018
Publication statusPublished - Jul-2018

    Keywords

  • Journal Article, REFERRING PHYSICIANS, FEEDBACK, QUALITY IMPROVEMENT

ID: 56706832