TY - JOUR
T1 - Routine editing of trainee-generated radiology reports
T2 - Effect on style quality
AU - Coakley, Fergus V.
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
SN - 1076-6332
VL - 10
SP - 289
EP - 294
JO - Academic radiology
JF - Academic radiology
IS - 3
ER -