Radiology reporting: a general practitioner's perspective.

Unlike hospital-based clinicians, general practitioners (GPs) lack direct contact with radiologists, and the radiology report is usually the sole method of communication from the radiologist to the GP. It is important to gain feedback regarding what GPs perceive as a good-quality radiology report, especially in the current climate of competition for provision of radiology services. The aims of this study are to determine the level of GP satisfaction with radiology reports, their perception of optimum report content and their preferences regarding the level of detail and report format. A questionnaire was sent to 100 GPs referring to our Trust for radiology services. GPs were generally satisfied with the content and clarity of reports that they receive, and gave suggestions on how reports could be improved. The majority of GPs were unfamiliar with the normal size ranges of frequently measured anatomical structures. Radiologists' recommendations for further treatment, referral and non-radiological investigation were viewed as valuable report components. When asked to rank preferences for ultrasound reports for the same patient with differing formats and levels of detail, GPs favoured detailed reports in a tabulated format. In conclusion, the majority of GPs like detailed reports and value the radiologist's opinion outside the remit of imaging when suggesting further patient management. Reporting the size of a structure without explanation of its significance can potentially cause confusion. It is important to know if GPs are satisfied with the radiology reports they receive so that we can uphold high communication standards and ultimately improve patient care.

Survey of hospital clinicians' preferences regarding the format of radiology reports.

AIM: To determine hospital consultants' preferences for the format and content of radiology reports. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety-nine questionnaires were sent to consultant staff with responsibility for requesting ultrasound examinations. The participants were invited to rank a variety of hypothetical reports in order of preference. They were also asked whether they felt other commonly included features of a radiology report were of value. Rank data were analysed by the Friedman statistic, Fisher's multiple comparisons least significant difference test, and the Kemeny-Young method. RESULTS: Forty-nine responses were received. There was a preference for more detailed reports that included a clinical comment by the radiologist, for both normal and abnormal results (p<0.05). Reports presented in tables were preferred. The combination of a detailed tabular report with a radiologist's comment was the most popular single structure, preferred by 43% of respondents for normal reports and 51% for abnormal reports. CONCLUSION: Detailed reports with a radiologists' comment are preferred to briefer reports, even for normal examinations. Tabular reports are preferred to prose, with the combination of a detailed report presented in a tabular format accompanied by a radiologist's comment being the most preferred style.