Abstract
Abstract
Objectives
We developed a national questionnaire to assess radiology reports (RR) physicians’ reading habits and identify their expectations towards RR, focusing on CT and MRI reports.
Materials and methods
An anonymized 20-item questionnaire was nationally distributed in France via practice and hospital mailing lists and one social media group, and included three sections: respondent’s profile; RR reading (importance and reading of RR sections, advice on key images [i.e., selected summary screenshots for main findings]); use and impact of the RR. Overall and profile-based subgroup analyses were performed.
Results
One thousand two hundred fifty physicians responded (58% women, 71% aged 20–34 years, 53.4% juniors, 85% from medical specialties). RR reading: 60.3% frequently read the whole report, 17.4% conclusion-only, and 9.9% images-only. Most respondents considered key images essential for comprehension, positively influencing opinion on RR and reinforcing confidence in the conclusion; 63.3% agree with a systematic key-images inclusion within RR. Concerning preliminary reports, 49.3% await validation by a senior radiologist to make their decision. RR use and impact: 55.7% copy the radiologist’s conclusion into their record, 39.5% reformulate it. Seven percent admitted having made a medical error by not reading the RR carefully. In life-threatening emergencies, 75% review the RR retrospectively, 18.5% refer directly to specialists regardless of the radiologist’s opinion. Responses were influenced by respondents’ profile (medical specialists vs surgeons, academic status, experience, gender), especially regarding the importance of the radiologist’s name and the incorporation of the conclusion.
Conclusion
Most clinicians declared reading the entire RR. Key images add value, while clinician profile shapes the way they read and use RR.
Key points
Question:
How do clinicians read and incorporate RR into medical records, and does the clinician’s profile influence these practices?
Findings:
Out ot 1253 respondents, 60.3% read the entire report or the findings section depending on the conclusion; 55.7% copy the radiologist’s conclusion.
Critical relevance statement:
RR’s conclusions are commonly incorporated as is into the record. Careful conclusion formulation, together with the addition of illustrating key images, may facilitate report use. These findings prompt consideration of tailoring reporting practices to the profile of the requesting physician.