Routine editing of trainee-generated radiology reports: Effect on style quality

Fergus Coakley, Stefan B. Heinze, Clair L. Shadbolt, Lawrence H. Schwartz, Michelle S. Ginsberg, Robert A. Lefkowitz, Susan Hilton, Kevin Conlon, Steven Leibel, Alan Turnbull, David M. Panicek

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

15 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Rationale and Objectives. The authors performed this study to determine the effect of routine editing on the style quality of trainee-generated radiology reports. Materials and Methods. Trainee-generated reports of 50 body computed tomographic scans obtained at a tertiary care cancer center were edited in a routine fashion by one of two attending radiologists. Three physicians and four radiologists each independently evaluated the randomized unedited and edited reports (n = 100) and rated each report for clarity, brevity, readability, and quality of the impression by using a five-point scale. Results. Editing significantly improved mean ratings for clarity (4.6 after editing vs 4.2 before editing, P <.007), brevity (4.6 vs 4.2, P <.007), readability (4.4 vs 4.1, P <.007), and quality of the impression (4.5 vs 4.3, P <.007). Conclusion. Routine editing of trainee-generated reports significantly improves the perceived report quality. This finding suggests that greater emphasis should be placed on stylistic aspects of reporting during training to improve report style quality at dictation.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)289-294
Number of pages6
JournalAcademic Radiology
Volume10
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1 2003
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Radiology
Tertiary Care Centers
Physicians
Neoplasms
Radiologists

Keywords

  • Radiology and radiologists
  • Radiology and radiologists, departmental management

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Coakley, F., Heinze, S. B., Shadbolt, C. L., Schwartz, L. H., Ginsberg, M. S., Lefkowitz, R. A., ... Panicek, D. M. (2003). Routine editing of trainee-generated radiology reports: Effect on style quality. Academic Radiology, 10(3), 289-294. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1076-6332(03)80103-4

Routine editing of trainee-generated radiology reports : Effect on style quality. / Coakley, Fergus; Heinze, Stefan B.; Shadbolt, Clair L.; Schwartz, Lawrence H.; Ginsberg, Michelle S.; Lefkowitz, Robert A.; Hilton, Susan; Conlon, Kevin; Leibel, Steven; Turnbull, Alan; Panicek, David M.

In: Academic Radiology, Vol. 10, No. 3, 01.03.2003, p. 289-294.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Coakley, F, Heinze, SB, Shadbolt, CL, Schwartz, LH, Ginsberg, MS, Lefkowitz, RA, Hilton, S, Conlon, K, Leibel, S, Turnbull, A & Panicek, DM 2003, 'Routine editing of trainee-generated radiology reports: Effect on style quality', Academic Radiology, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 289-294. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1076-6332(03)80103-4
Coakley F, Heinze SB, Shadbolt CL, Schwartz LH, Ginsberg MS, Lefkowitz RA et al. Routine editing of trainee-generated radiology reports: Effect on style quality. Academic Radiology. 2003 Mar 1;10(3):289-294. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1076-6332(03)80103-4
Coakley, Fergus ; Heinze, Stefan B. ; Shadbolt, Clair L. ; Schwartz, Lawrence H. ; Ginsberg, Michelle S. ; Lefkowitz, Robert A. ; Hilton, Susan ; Conlon, Kevin ; Leibel, Steven ; Turnbull, Alan ; Panicek, David M. / Routine editing of trainee-generated radiology reports : Effect on style quality. In: Academic Radiology. 2003 ; Vol. 10, No. 3. pp. 289-294.
@article{38bd958764264f48b1757682146e715f,
title = "Routine editing of trainee-generated radiology reports: Effect on style quality",
abstract = "Rationale and Objectives. The authors performed this study to determine the effect of routine editing on the style quality of trainee-generated radiology reports. Materials and Methods. Trainee-generated reports of 50 body computed tomographic scans obtained at a tertiary care cancer center were edited in a routine fashion by one of two attending radiologists. Three physicians and four radiologists each independently evaluated the randomized unedited and edited reports (n = 100) and rated each report for clarity, brevity, readability, and quality of the impression by using a five-point scale. Results. Editing significantly improved mean ratings for clarity (4.6 after editing vs 4.2 before editing, P <.007), brevity (4.6 vs 4.2, P <.007), readability (4.4 vs 4.1, P <.007), and quality of the impression (4.5 vs 4.3, P <.007). Conclusion. Routine editing of trainee-generated reports significantly improves the perceived report quality. This finding suggests that greater emphasis should be placed on stylistic aspects of reporting during training to improve report style quality at dictation.",
keywords = "Radiology and radiologists, Radiology and radiologists, departmental management",
author = "Fergus Coakley and Heinze, {Stefan B.} and Shadbolt, {Clair L.} and Schwartz, {Lawrence H.} and Ginsberg, {Michelle S.} and Lefkowitz, {Robert A.} and Susan Hilton and Kevin Conlon and Steven Leibel and Alan Turnbull and Panicek, {David M.}",
year = "2003",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/S1076-6332(03)80103-4",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "10",
pages = "289--294",
journal = "Academic Radiology",
issn = "1076-6332",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Routine editing of trainee-generated radiology reports

T2 - Effect on style quality

AU - Coakley, Fergus

AU - Heinze, Stefan B.

AU - Shadbolt, Clair L.

AU - Schwartz, Lawrence H.

AU - Ginsberg, Michelle S.

AU - Lefkowitz, Robert A.

AU - Hilton, Susan

AU - Conlon, Kevin

AU - Leibel, Steven

AU - Turnbull, Alan

AU - Panicek, David M.

PY - 2003/3/1

Y1 - 2003/3/1

N2 - Rationale and Objectives. The authors performed this study to determine the effect of routine editing on the style quality of trainee-generated radiology reports. Materials and Methods. Trainee-generated reports of 50 body computed tomographic scans obtained at a tertiary care cancer center were edited in a routine fashion by one of two attending radiologists. Three physicians and four radiologists each independently evaluated the randomized unedited and edited reports (n = 100) and rated each report for clarity, brevity, readability, and quality of the impression by using a five-point scale. Results. Editing significantly improved mean ratings for clarity (4.6 after editing vs 4.2 before editing, P <.007), brevity (4.6 vs 4.2, P <.007), readability (4.4 vs 4.1, P <.007), and quality of the impression (4.5 vs 4.3, P <.007). Conclusion. Routine editing of trainee-generated reports significantly improves the perceived report quality. This finding suggests that greater emphasis should be placed on stylistic aspects of reporting during training to improve report style quality at dictation.

AB - Rationale and Objectives. The authors performed this study to determine the effect of routine editing on the style quality of trainee-generated radiology reports. Materials and Methods. Trainee-generated reports of 50 body computed tomographic scans obtained at a tertiary care cancer center were edited in a routine fashion by one of two attending radiologists. Three physicians and four radiologists each independently evaluated the randomized unedited and edited reports (n = 100) and rated each report for clarity, brevity, readability, and quality of the impression by using a five-point scale. Results. Editing significantly improved mean ratings for clarity (4.6 after editing vs 4.2 before editing, P <.007), brevity (4.6 vs 4.2, P <.007), readability (4.4 vs 4.1, P <.007), and quality of the impression (4.5 vs 4.3, P <.007). Conclusion. Routine editing of trainee-generated reports significantly improves the perceived report quality. This finding suggests that greater emphasis should be placed on stylistic aspects of reporting during training to improve report style quality at dictation.

KW - Radiology and radiologists

KW - Radiology and radiologists, departmental management

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0037373120&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0037373120&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S1076-6332(03)80103-4

DO - 10.1016/S1076-6332(03)80103-4

M3 - Article

C2 - 12643556

AN - SCOPUS:0037373120

VL - 10

SP - 289

EP - 294

JO - Academic Radiology

JF - Academic Radiology

SN - 1076-6332

IS - 3

ER -