4.4 Article

Image-Rich Radiology Reports: A Value-Based Model to Improve Clinical Workflow

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2016.07.018

关键词

Value-based imaging; image-rich radiology reports; workflow

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To determine the value of image-rich radiology reports (IRRR) by evaluating the interest and preferences of referring physicians, potential impact on clinical workflow, and the willingness of radiologists to create them. Methods: Referring physicians and radiologists were interviewed in this prospective, HIPAA-compliant study. Subject willingness to participate in the study was determined by an e-mail. A single investigator conducted all interviews using a standard questionnaire. All subjects reviewed a video mockup demonstration of IRRR and three methods for viewing embedded images, as follows: (1) clickable hyperlinks to access a scrollable stack of images, (2) scrollable and enlargeable small-image thumbnails, and (3) scrollable but not enlargeable medium-sized images. Questionnaire responses, free comments, and general impressions were captured and analyzed. Results: Seventy-two physicians (36 clinicians, 36 radiologists) were interviewed. Thirty-one clinicians (86%) expressed interest in using IRRR. Seventy-seven percent of subjects believed IRRR would improve communication. Ten clinicians (28%) preferred method I, 18 (50%) preferred method 2, and 8 (22%) preferred method 3 for embedding images. Thirty clinicians (83%) stated that IRRR would improve efficiency. Twenty-two radiologists (61%) preferred selecting a tool button with a mouse and right-clicking images to embed them, 13 (36%) preferred pressing a function key, and 11 (31%) preferred dictating series and image numbers. The average time radiologists were willing to expend for embedding images was 66.7 seconds. Conclusions: Referring physicians and radiologist both believe IRRR would add value by improving communication with the potential to improve the workflow efficiency of referring physicians.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据