Characteristics and quality assessment of online mentoring profile texts in academic medical mentoring.

BACKGROUND: Mentoring is important for a successful career in academic medicine. In online matching processes, profile texts are decisive for the mentor-selection. We aimed to qualitatively characterize mentoring-profile-texts, identify differences in form and content and thus elements that promote selection. METHODS: In a mixed method study first, quality of texts in 150 selected mentoring profiles was evaluated (10-point Likert scale; 1 = insufficient to 10 = very good). Second, based on a thematic and content analysis approach of profile texts, categories and subcategories were defined. We compared the presence of the assigned categories between the 25% highest ranked profiles with the 25% lowest ranked ones. Finally, additional predefined categories (hot topics) were labelled on the selected texts and their impact on student evaluation was statistically examined. RESULTS: Students rated the quality of texts with a mean of 5.89 ± 1.45. 5 main thematic categories, 21 categories and a total of 74 subcategories were identified. Ten subcategories were significantly associated with high- and four with low-rated profiles. The presence of three or more hot topics in texts significantly correlated with a positive evaluation. CONCLUSION: The introduced classification system helps to understand how mentoring profile texts are composed and which aspects are important for choosing a suited mentor.

Structured Reporting Using CEUS LI-RADS for the Diagnosis of Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC)-Impact and Advantages on Report Integrity, Quality and Interdisciplinary Communication.

BACKGROUND: Our retrospective single-center study aims to evaluate the impact of structured reporting (SR) using a CEUS LI-RADS template on report quality compared to conventional free-text reporting (FTR) in contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS: We included 50 patients who underwent CEUS for HCC staging. FTR created after these examinations were compared to SR retrospectively generated by using template-based online software with clickable decision trees. The reports were evaluated regarding report completeness, information extraction, linguistic quality and overall report quality by two readers specialized in internal medicine and visceral surgery. RESULTS: SR significantly increased report completeness with at least one key feature missing in 31% of FTR vs. 2% of SR (p < 0.001). Information extraction was considered easy in 98% of SR vs. 86% of FTR (p = 0.004). The trust of referring physicians in the report was significantly increased by SR with a mean of 5.68 for SR vs. 4.96 for FTR (p < 0.001). SR received significantly higher ratings regarding linguistic quality (5.79 for SR vs. 4.83 for FTR (p < 0.001)) and overall report quality (5.75 for SR vs. 5.01 for FTR (p < 0.001)). CONCLUSIONS: Using SR instead of conventional FTR increases the overall quality of reports in CEUS examinations of HCC patients and may represent a valuable tool to facilitate clinical decision-making and improve interdisciplinary communication in the future.