Routine editing of trainee-generated radiology reports: effect on style quality
- PMID: 12643556
- DOI: 10.1016/s1076-6332(03)80103-4
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.
Similar articles
-
Simplified Readability Metric Drives Improvement of Radiology Reports: an Experiment on Ultrasound Reports at a Pediatric Hospital.J Digit Imaging. 2017 Dec;30(6):710-717. doi: 10.1007/s10278-017-9972-7. J Digit Imaging. 2017. PMID: 28484918 Free PMC article.
-
Readability of the radiologic report.Invest Radiol. 1992 Mar;27(3):236-9. doi: 10.1097/00004424-199203000-00012. Invest Radiol. 1992. PMID: 1551775
-
A new method of evaluating the quality of radiology reports.Acad Radiol. 2006 Feb;13(2):241-8. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2005.10.015. Acad Radiol. 2006. PMID: 16428061
-
The radiology report--are we getting the message across?Clin Radiol. 2011 Nov;66(11):1015-22. doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2011.05.013. Epub 2011 Jul 23. Clin Radiol. 2011. PMID: 21788016 Review.
-
[Images and words. Image transmission and reporting in thoracic radiology (II)].Radiol Med. 2000 May;99(5):323-33. Radiol Med. 2000. PMID: 10938700 Review. Italian. No abstract available.
Cited by
-
Technical editing of research reports in biomedical journals.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008 Oct 8;2008(4):MR000002. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000002.pub3. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008. PMID: 18843753 Free PMC article.
-
Assessing Electronic Note Quality Using the Physician Documentation Quality Instrument (PDQI-9).Appl Clin Inform. 2012;3(2):164-174. doi: 10.4338/aci-2011-11-ra-0070. Appl Clin Inform. 2012. PMID: 22577483 Free PMC article.
-
Preliminary development of the physician documentation quality instrument.J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2008 Jul-Aug;15(4):534-41. doi: 10.1197/jamia.M2404. Epub 2008 Apr 24. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2008. PMID: 18436914 Free PMC article.
-
The importance of educational tools and a new software solution for visualizing and quantifying report correction in radiology training.Sci Rep. 2024 Jan 12;14(1):1172. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-51462-4. Sci Rep. 2024. PMID: 38216664 Free PMC article.
-
A succinct rating scale for radiology report quality.SAGE Open Med. 2014 Dec 16;2:2050312114563101. doi: 10.1177/2050312114563101. eCollection 2014. SAGE Open Med. 2014. PMID: 26770756 Free PMC article.