Interpreting the interpretations

The use of structured reporting improves referring clinicians' comprehension of coronary CT angiography reports

Brian B. Ghoshhajra, Ashley M. Lee, Maros Ferencik, Sammy Elmariah, Ronan J P Margey, Oyere Onuma, Marcello Panagia, Suhny Abbara, Udo Hoffmann

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

25 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Efficiency of coronary CT angiography (CCTA) in clinical practice depends on precise reporting and accurate result interpretation. Objective: We sought to assess referring clinicians' understanding of patients' coronary artery disease (CAD) severity and to compare satisfactions of the free-form impression (FFI) with satisfactions of the structured impression (SI) section of CCTA reports. Materials and Methods: Fifty clinical CCTA reports from May 2011 to April 2012 were retrospectively selected (25 FFI and 25 SI), to include cases with the entire spectrum of CAD (6 categories encompassing normal, minimal, mild, moderate, severe stenosis, and occlusion). A survey containing only randomized blinded impressions was distributed to 4 cardiologists and 2 cardiac imaging specialists. Clinician interpretation was examined regarding (Q1) worst stenosis severity, (Q2) number of vessels with significant stenosis, and (Q3) the presence of nonevaluable segments. Agreement proportions and Cohen's kappa were evaluated between FFI versus SI. Satisfactions were measured with respect to content, clarity, and clinical effectiveness. Results: Q1 agreement was excellent for both FFI and SI (by 6 categories: 80% versus 85%; P >.05; kappa: 0.87 versus 0.89; by no CAD versus nonsignificant versus significant CAD: 99% versus 97%; P >.05; kappa: 0.99 versus 0.94). Q2 agreement improved from fair to moderate (53% versus 68%; P =.04; kappa 0.31 versus 0.52). Q3 agreement was moderate (90% versus 87%; P >.05; kappa 0.57 versus 0.58). Satisfactions with impressions were high and similar for FFI and SI for clinicians. Conclusion: Structured impressions were shown to improve result interpretation agreement from fair to moderate with regard to the number of vessels with significant stenosis.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)432-438
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of the American College of Radiology
Volume10
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - 2013
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Coronary Angiography
Coronary Artery Disease
Pathologic Constriction
Computed Tomography Angiography

Keywords

  • coronary CT angiography
  • referring clinicians
  • Structured reporting

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Interpreting the interpretations : The use of structured reporting improves referring clinicians' comprehension of coronary CT angiography reports. / Ghoshhajra, Brian B.; Lee, Ashley M.; Ferencik, Maros; Elmariah, Sammy; Margey, Ronan J P; Onuma, Oyere; Panagia, Marcello; Abbara, Suhny; Hoffmann, Udo.

In: Journal of the American College of Radiology, Vol. 10, No. 6, 2013, p. 432-438.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Ghoshhajra, Brian B. ; Lee, Ashley M. ; Ferencik, Maros ; Elmariah, Sammy ; Margey, Ronan J P ; Onuma, Oyere ; Panagia, Marcello ; Abbara, Suhny ; Hoffmann, Udo. / Interpreting the interpretations : The use of structured reporting improves referring clinicians' comprehension of coronary CT angiography reports. In: Journal of the American College of Radiology. 2013 ; Vol. 10, No. 6. pp. 432-438.
@article{5237f42ebccf4112ae549e2c0ac9d04f,
title = "Interpreting the interpretations: The use of structured reporting improves referring clinicians' comprehension of coronary CT angiography reports",
abstract = "Background: Efficiency of coronary CT angiography (CCTA) in clinical practice depends on precise reporting and accurate result interpretation. Objective: We sought to assess referring clinicians' understanding of patients' coronary artery disease (CAD) severity and to compare satisfactions of the free-form impression (FFI) with satisfactions of the structured impression (SI) section of CCTA reports. Materials and Methods: Fifty clinical CCTA reports from May 2011 to April 2012 were retrospectively selected (25 FFI and 25 SI), to include cases with the entire spectrum of CAD (6 categories encompassing normal, minimal, mild, moderate, severe stenosis, and occlusion). A survey containing only randomized blinded impressions was distributed to 4 cardiologists and 2 cardiac imaging specialists. Clinician interpretation was examined regarding (Q1) worst stenosis severity, (Q2) number of vessels with significant stenosis, and (Q3) the presence of nonevaluable segments. Agreement proportions and Cohen's kappa were evaluated between FFI versus SI. Satisfactions were measured with respect to content, clarity, and clinical effectiveness. Results: Q1 agreement was excellent for both FFI and SI (by 6 categories: 80{\%} versus 85{\%}; P >.05; kappa: 0.87 versus 0.89; by no CAD versus nonsignificant versus significant CAD: 99{\%} versus 97{\%}; P >.05; kappa: 0.99 versus 0.94). Q2 agreement improved from fair to moderate (53{\%} versus 68{\%}; P =.04; kappa 0.31 versus 0.52). Q3 agreement was moderate (90{\%} versus 87{\%}; P >.05; kappa 0.57 versus 0.58). Satisfactions with impressions were high and similar for FFI and SI for clinicians. Conclusion: Structured impressions were shown to improve result interpretation agreement from fair to moderate with regard to the number of vessels with significant stenosis.",
keywords = "coronary CT angiography, referring clinicians, Structured reporting",
author = "Ghoshhajra, {Brian B.} and Lee, {Ashley M.} and Maros Ferencik and Sammy Elmariah and Margey, {Ronan J P} and Oyere Onuma and Marcello Panagia and Suhny Abbara and Udo Hoffmann",
year = "2013",
doi = "10.1016/j.jacr.2012.11.012",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "10",
pages = "432--438",
journal = "Journal of the American College of Radiology",
issn = "1558-349X",
publisher = "Elsevier BV",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Interpreting the interpretations

T2 - The use of structured reporting improves referring clinicians' comprehension of coronary CT angiography reports

AU - Ghoshhajra, Brian B.

AU - Lee, Ashley M.

AU - Ferencik, Maros

AU - Elmariah, Sammy

AU - Margey, Ronan J P

AU - Onuma, Oyere

AU - Panagia, Marcello

AU - Abbara, Suhny

AU - Hoffmann, Udo

PY - 2013

Y1 - 2013

N2 - Background: Efficiency of coronary CT angiography (CCTA) in clinical practice depends on precise reporting and accurate result interpretation. Objective: We sought to assess referring clinicians' understanding of patients' coronary artery disease (CAD) severity and to compare satisfactions of the free-form impression (FFI) with satisfactions of the structured impression (SI) section of CCTA reports. Materials and Methods: Fifty clinical CCTA reports from May 2011 to April 2012 were retrospectively selected (25 FFI and 25 SI), to include cases with the entire spectrum of CAD (6 categories encompassing normal, minimal, mild, moderate, severe stenosis, and occlusion). A survey containing only randomized blinded impressions was distributed to 4 cardiologists and 2 cardiac imaging specialists. Clinician interpretation was examined regarding (Q1) worst stenosis severity, (Q2) number of vessels with significant stenosis, and (Q3) the presence of nonevaluable segments. Agreement proportions and Cohen's kappa were evaluated between FFI versus SI. Satisfactions were measured with respect to content, clarity, and clinical effectiveness. Results: Q1 agreement was excellent for both FFI and SI (by 6 categories: 80% versus 85%; P >.05; kappa: 0.87 versus 0.89; by no CAD versus nonsignificant versus significant CAD: 99% versus 97%; P >.05; kappa: 0.99 versus 0.94). Q2 agreement improved from fair to moderate (53% versus 68%; P =.04; kappa 0.31 versus 0.52). Q3 agreement was moderate (90% versus 87%; P >.05; kappa 0.57 versus 0.58). Satisfactions with impressions were high and similar for FFI and SI for clinicians. Conclusion: Structured impressions were shown to improve result interpretation agreement from fair to moderate with regard to the number of vessels with significant stenosis.

AB - Background: Efficiency of coronary CT angiography (CCTA) in clinical practice depends on precise reporting and accurate result interpretation. Objective: We sought to assess referring clinicians' understanding of patients' coronary artery disease (CAD) severity and to compare satisfactions of the free-form impression (FFI) with satisfactions of the structured impression (SI) section of CCTA reports. Materials and Methods: Fifty clinical CCTA reports from May 2011 to April 2012 were retrospectively selected (25 FFI and 25 SI), to include cases with the entire spectrum of CAD (6 categories encompassing normal, minimal, mild, moderate, severe stenosis, and occlusion). A survey containing only randomized blinded impressions was distributed to 4 cardiologists and 2 cardiac imaging specialists. Clinician interpretation was examined regarding (Q1) worst stenosis severity, (Q2) number of vessels with significant stenosis, and (Q3) the presence of nonevaluable segments. Agreement proportions and Cohen's kappa were evaluated between FFI versus SI. Satisfactions were measured with respect to content, clarity, and clinical effectiveness. Results: Q1 agreement was excellent for both FFI and SI (by 6 categories: 80% versus 85%; P >.05; kappa: 0.87 versus 0.89; by no CAD versus nonsignificant versus significant CAD: 99% versus 97%; P >.05; kappa: 0.99 versus 0.94). Q2 agreement improved from fair to moderate (53% versus 68%; P =.04; kappa 0.31 versus 0.52). Q3 agreement was moderate (90% versus 87%; P >.05; kappa 0.57 versus 0.58). Satisfactions with impressions were high and similar for FFI and SI for clinicians. Conclusion: Structured impressions were shown to improve result interpretation agreement from fair to moderate with regard to the number of vessels with significant stenosis.

KW - coronary CT angiography

KW - referring clinicians

KW - Structured reporting

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84878599521&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84878599521&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jacr.2012.11.012

DO - 10.1016/j.jacr.2012.11.012

M3 - Article

VL - 10

SP - 432

EP - 438

JO - Journal of the American College of Radiology

JF - Journal of the American College of Radiology

SN - 1558-349X

IS - 6

ER -