Cargando…

Patient experience of imaging reports: A systematic literature review

INTRODUCTION: Written reports are often the sole form of communication from diagnostic imaging. Reports are increasingly being accessed by patients through electronic records. Experiencing medical terminology can be confusing and lead to miscommunication, a decrease in involvement and increased anxi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rogers, Charlie, Willis, Sophie, Gillard, Steven, Chudleigh, Jane
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10395377/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37538965
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1742271X221140024
_version_ 1785083568396959744
author Rogers, Charlie
Willis, Sophie
Gillard, Steven
Chudleigh, Jane
author_facet Rogers, Charlie
Willis, Sophie
Gillard, Steven
Chudleigh, Jane
author_sort Rogers, Charlie
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Written reports are often the sole form of communication from diagnostic imaging. Reports are increasingly being accessed by patients through electronic records. Experiencing medical terminology can be confusing and lead to miscommunication, a decrease in involvement and increased anxiety for patients. METHODS: This systematic review was designed to include predefined study selection criteria and was registered prospectively on PROSPERO (CRD42020221734). MEDLINE, CINAHL, Academic Search Complete (EBSCOhost), EMBASE, Scopus and EThOS were searched to identify articles meeting the inclusion criteria. Studies were assessed against the Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool version 2018 for quality. A segregated approach was used to synthesise data. A thematic synthesis of the qualitative data and a narrative review of the quantitative data were performed, and findings of both syntheses were then integrated. FINDINGS: Twelve articles reporting 13 studies were included. This review found that patients’ experiences of imaging reports included positive and negative aspects. The study identified two main themes encompassing both qualitative and quantitative findings. Patients reported their experiences regarding their understanding of reports and self-management. DISCUSSION: Patient understanding of imaging reports is multi factorial including medical terminology, communication aids and errors. Self-management through direct access is important to patients. While receiving bad news is a concern, responsibility for accessing this is accepted. CONCLUSION: A patient-centred approach to writing imaging reports may help to improve the quality of service, patient experience and wider health outcomes.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10395377
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-103953772023-08-03 Patient experience of imaging reports: A systematic literature review Rogers, Charlie Willis, Sophie Gillard, Steven Chudleigh, Jane Ultrasound Review INTRODUCTION: Written reports are often the sole form of communication from diagnostic imaging. Reports are increasingly being accessed by patients through electronic records. Experiencing medical terminology can be confusing and lead to miscommunication, a decrease in involvement and increased anxiety for patients. METHODS: This systematic review was designed to include predefined study selection criteria and was registered prospectively on PROSPERO (CRD42020221734). MEDLINE, CINAHL, Academic Search Complete (EBSCOhost), EMBASE, Scopus and EThOS were searched to identify articles meeting the inclusion criteria. Studies were assessed against the Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool version 2018 for quality. A segregated approach was used to synthesise data. A thematic synthesis of the qualitative data and a narrative review of the quantitative data were performed, and findings of both syntheses were then integrated. FINDINGS: Twelve articles reporting 13 studies were included. This review found that patients’ experiences of imaging reports included positive and negative aspects. The study identified two main themes encompassing both qualitative and quantitative findings. Patients reported their experiences regarding their understanding of reports and self-management. DISCUSSION: Patient understanding of imaging reports is multi factorial including medical terminology, communication aids and errors. Self-management through direct access is important to patients. While receiving bad news is a concern, responsibility for accessing this is accepted. CONCLUSION: A patient-centred approach to writing imaging reports may help to improve the quality of service, patient experience and wider health outcomes. SAGE Publications 2023-01-27 2023-08 /pmc/articles/PMC10395377/ /pubmed/37538965 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1742271X221140024 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Review
Rogers, Charlie
Willis, Sophie
Gillard, Steven
Chudleigh, Jane
Patient experience of imaging reports: A systematic literature review
title Patient experience of imaging reports: A systematic literature review
title_full Patient experience of imaging reports: A systematic literature review
title_fullStr Patient experience of imaging reports: A systematic literature review
title_full_unstemmed Patient experience of imaging reports: A systematic literature review
title_short Patient experience of imaging reports: A systematic literature review
title_sort patient experience of imaging reports: a systematic literature review
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10395377/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37538965
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1742271X221140024
work_keys_str_mv AT rogerscharlie patientexperienceofimagingreportsasystematicliteraturereview
AT willissophie patientexperienceofimagingreportsasystematicliteraturereview
AT gillardsteven patientexperienceofimagingreportsasystematicliteraturereview
AT chudleighjane patientexperienceofimagingreportsasystematicliteraturereview