A SURVEY OF RADIOLOGISTS AND REFERRING VETERINARIANS REGARDING IMAGING REPORTS |
| |
| Authors: | Andrea Weissman Mauricio Solano Olivier Taeymans Shannon P. Holmes David Jiménez Bruce Barton |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Department of Clinical Sciences, Cummings School of Veterinary, Tufts University, North Grafton, MA;2. Dick White Referrals, Diagnostic Imaging, Cambridge, UK;3. Department of Veterinary Biosciences and Diagnostic Imaging, The University of Georgia, Athens, GA;4. Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA |
| |
| Abstract: | An imaging report is a vital communication tool between a radiologist and clinician. In a field where in‐person communication may not be readily available, it is imperative that the report clearly relays pertinent clinical information in a timely manner. The purpose of this observational study was to describe and compare opinions and expectations of small animal general practitioners, veterinary specialists, and veterinary radiologists regarding the imaging report. Online surveys were distributed, and data were collected from 202 veterinary clinicians and 123 veterinary radiologists. The majority (89%) of clinicians were satisfied with their imaging reports and stated that they read the radiology report as soon as it was available (92%). Just less than half (48%) of clinicians indicated it was standard of care that a board‐certified veterinary radiologist read all imaging studies. Radiologists and clinicians agreed that a clinical history (98% and 94%, respectively) and clinical question (82% and 68%, respectively) were needed to generate a good radiology report. Fifty‐five percent to 70% of clinicians prefer red bulleted reports, which included incidental findings (96%); while radiologists slightly favored prose reporting (37–46%). Clinicians found it helpful when additional imaging (86%), medical (71%), and surgical recommendations (73%) were made. About one‐third of specialists who had been in practice for >11 years thought they were better able to interpret imaging for their own specialty than the radiologist. Clinicians voiced discontentment with reports that were not completed in a timely manner or did not give a prioritized differential list. Further studies are warranted to provide a more in‐depth evaluation of veterinary radiology reporting structure and style. |
| |
| Keywords: | imaging radiology report style |
|
|
