Direct Reporting of Results to Patients. The Future of Radiology?

Melanie Kuhlman, Monique Meyer, Elizabeth A Krupinski

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

38 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Rationale and Objectives: Radiologists have traditionally left relaying exam results to patients in the hands of clinicians. Recent editorials have reexamined radiologists' traditional position and questioned whether radiologists should continue to remain within the confines of the reading room or increase their contact with patients. The present study addressed this issue by surveying patients directly regarding their preferences. Materials and Methods: A survey was given to all patients aged ≥ 21 years undergoing outpatient magnetic resonance imaging or computed tomographic examinations at an academic medical center and at an associated outpatient center. Responses were anonymous. Surveys were provided over a 4-week period in February and March 2011; 237 were returned. Results: The majority of patients (73%-77%) continue to prefer the practice model already established, regardless of whether the results are normal or abnormal. However, the same percentage of patients preferred to hear the results of their exams from the experts interpreting the exams. The discrepancy in these results is likely reflected in the fact that there is persistent confusion as to the role of radiologists. Although most patients correctly defined a radiologist as a physician, 40% believed that a radiologist is a technician or a nurse. A large percentage of patients (64%) responded positively to wanting to meet the radiologists interpreting their exams. Conclusions: As radiologists, we need to reevaluate the established model of communication for reporting radiology results and consider the positive impact on patient care, and on the vitality of the radiology profession, of directly communicating with patients.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)646-650
Number of pages5
JournalAcademic Radiology
Volume19
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 2012

Fingerprint

Radiology
Outpatients
Confusion
Radiologists
Reading
Patient Care
Nurses
Communication
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Physicians

Keywords

  • Communication
  • Patient preferences
  • Radiology reports

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Direct Reporting of Results to Patients. The Future of Radiology? / Kuhlman, Melanie; Meyer, Monique; Krupinski, Elizabeth A.

In: Academic Radiology, Vol. 19, No. 6, 06.2012, p. 646-650.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Kuhlman, Melanie ; Meyer, Monique ; Krupinski, Elizabeth A. / Direct Reporting of Results to Patients. The Future of Radiology?. In: Academic Radiology. 2012 ; Vol. 19, No. 6. pp. 646-650.
@article{3673bd7fa1064a7daf433c2d59498fa1,
title = "Direct Reporting of Results to Patients. The Future of Radiology?",
abstract = "Rationale and Objectives: Radiologists have traditionally left relaying exam results to patients in the hands of clinicians. Recent editorials have reexamined radiologists' traditional position and questioned whether radiologists should continue to remain within the confines of the reading room or increase their contact with patients. The present study addressed this issue by surveying patients directly regarding their preferences. Materials and Methods: A survey was given to all patients aged ≥ 21 years undergoing outpatient magnetic resonance imaging or computed tomographic examinations at an academic medical center and at an associated outpatient center. Responses were anonymous. Surveys were provided over a 4-week period in February and March 2011; 237 were returned. Results: The majority of patients (73{\%}-77{\%}) continue to prefer the practice model already established, regardless of whether the results are normal or abnormal. However, the same percentage of patients preferred to hear the results of their exams from the experts interpreting the exams. The discrepancy in these results is likely reflected in the fact that there is persistent confusion as to the role of radiologists. Although most patients correctly defined a radiologist as a physician, 40{\%} believed that a radiologist is a technician or a nurse. A large percentage of patients (64{\%}) responded positively to wanting to meet the radiologists interpreting their exams. Conclusions: As radiologists, we need to reevaluate the established model of communication for reporting radiology results and consider the positive impact on patient care, and on the vitality of the radiology profession, of directly communicating with patients.",
keywords = "Communication, Patient preferences, Radiology reports",
author = "Melanie Kuhlman and Monique Meyer and Krupinski, {Elizabeth A}",
year = "2012",
month = "6",
doi = "10.1016/j.acra.2012.02.020",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "19",
pages = "646--650",
journal = "Academic Radiology",
issn = "1076-6332",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Direct Reporting of Results to Patients. The Future of Radiology?

AU - Kuhlman, Melanie

AU - Meyer, Monique

AU - Krupinski, Elizabeth A

PY - 2012/6

Y1 - 2012/6

N2 - Rationale and Objectives: Radiologists have traditionally left relaying exam results to patients in the hands of clinicians. Recent editorials have reexamined radiologists' traditional position and questioned whether radiologists should continue to remain within the confines of the reading room or increase their contact with patients. The present study addressed this issue by surveying patients directly regarding their preferences. Materials and Methods: A survey was given to all patients aged ≥ 21 years undergoing outpatient magnetic resonance imaging or computed tomographic examinations at an academic medical center and at an associated outpatient center. Responses were anonymous. Surveys were provided over a 4-week period in February and March 2011; 237 were returned. Results: The majority of patients (73%-77%) continue to prefer the practice model already established, regardless of whether the results are normal or abnormal. However, the same percentage of patients preferred to hear the results of their exams from the experts interpreting the exams. The discrepancy in these results is likely reflected in the fact that there is persistent confusion as to the role of radiologists. Although most patients correctly defined a radiologist as a physician, 40% believed that a radiologist is a technician or a nurse. A large percentage of patients (64%) responded positively to wanting to meet the radiologists interpreting their exams. Conclusions: As radiologists, we need to reevaluate the established model of communication for reporting radiology results and consider the positive impact on patient care, and on the vitality of the radiology profession, of directly communicating with patients.

AB - Rationale and Objectives: Radiologists have traditionally left relaying exam results to patients in the hands of clinicians. Recent editorials have reexamined radiologists' traditional position and questioned whether radiologists should continue to remain within the confines of the reading room or increase their contact with patients. The present study addressed this issue by surveying patients directly regarding their preferences. Materials and Methods: A survey was given to all patients aged ≥ 21 years undergoing outpatient magnetic resonance imaging or computed tomographic examinations at an academic medical center and at an associated outpatient center. Responses were anonymous. Surveys were provided over a 4-week period in February and March 2011; 237 were returned. Results: The majority of patients (73%-77%) continue to prefer the practice model already established, regardless of whether the results are normal or abnormal. However, the same percentage of patients preferred to hear the results of their exams from the experts interpreting the exams. The discrepancy in these results is likely reflected in the fact that there is persistent confusion as to the role of radiologists. Although most patients correctly defined a radiologist as a physician, 40% believed that a radiologist is a technician or a nurse. A large percentage of patients (64%) responded positively to wanting to meet the radiologists interpreting their exams. Conclusions: As radiologists, we need to reevaluate the established model of communication for reporting radiology results and consider the positive impact on patient care, and on the vitality of the radiology profession, of directly communicating with patients.

KW - Communication

KW - Patient preferences

KW - Radiology reports

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84860616878&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84860616878&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.acra.2012.02.020

DO - 10.1016/j.acra.2012.02.020

M3 - Article

C2 - 22578223

AN - SCOPUS:84860616878

VL - 19

SP - 646

EP - 650

JO - Academic Radiology

JF - Academic Radiology

SN - 1076-6332

IS - 6

ER -