Cargando…
Do oncologists prefer subspecialty radiology reports? A quality care study
BACKGROUND: The main objective was to assess whether CT reports of radiologists subspecialized in oncologic imaging respond better to oncological referrals than reports from general radiologists. The secondary objective was to assess differences in ratings between a senior and junior oncologist. Two...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer International Publishing
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8155173/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34037872 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13244-021-01007-4 |
_version_ | 1783699149536886784 |
---|---|
author | Rizzo, Stefania Del Grande, Maria Espeli, Vittoria Stathis, Anastasios Nicolino, Gabriele Maria Del Grande, Filippo |
author_facet | Rizzo, Stefania Del Grande, Maria Espeli, Vittoria Stathis, Anastasios Nicolino, Gabriele Maria Del Grande, Filippo |
author_sort | Rizzo, Stefania |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The main objective was to assess whether CT reports of radiologists subspecialized in oncologic imaging respond better to oncological referrals than reports from general radiologists. The secondary objective was to assess differences in ratings between a senior and junior oncologist. Two hundred radiological reports pertaining to oncological patients were retrospectively selected of which 100 each were written by subspecialized radiologists and general radiologists, respectively. The senior and junior oncologists each rated all CT reports using a Likert scale from 1 to 5 (1 = very poor, 5 = excellent) for the following information: anatomical details; interpretation of findings; need for further explanations; appropriateness of conclusions; overall satisfaction. Comparisons between ratings assigned to reports from generalist radiologists and subspecialty radiologists were performed using the Mann–Whitney U test. Agreement between both oncologists was assessed through Gwet's coefficient. RESULTS: For all but two of the five items obtained from the senior oncologist, oncologists' ratings were significantly higher for subspecialty radiologists' reports (p < 0.01); mean values from both oncologists were generally higher for subspecialty reports (p < 0.001). Agreement between the senior and junior oncologist in the rating of reports from general and subspecialty radiologists was either moderate to substantial (0.5986–0.6788) or substantial to almost perfect (0.6958–0.8358). CONCLUSIONS: According to a senior and junior oncologist, CT reports performed by subspecialized radiologists in oncologic imaging are clearer, more accurate, and more appropriate in the interpretation and conclusions compared to reports written by general radiologists. Likewise, the overall satisfaction of the oncologist from a subspecialized radiologist report is higher. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13244-021-01007-4. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8155173 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Springer International Publishing |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-81551732021-06-17 Do oncologists prefer subspecialty radiology reports? A quality care study Rizzo, Stefania Del Grande, Maria Espeli, Vittoria Stathis, Anastasios Nicolino, Gabriele Maria Del Grande, Filippo Insights Imaging Original Article BACKGROUND: The main objective was to assess whether CT reports of radiologists subspecialized in oncologic imaging respond better to oncological referrals than reports from general radiologists. The secondary objective was to assess differences in ratings between a senior and junior oncologist. Two hundred radiological reports pertaining to oncological patients were retrospectively selected of which 100 each were written by subspecialized radiologists and general radiologists, respectively. The senior and junior oncologists each rated all CT reports using a Likert scale from 1 to 5 (1 = very poor, 5 = excellent) for the following information: anatomical details; interpretation of findings; need for further explanations; appropriateness of conclusions; overall satisfaction. Comparisons between ratings assigned to reports from generalist radiologists and subspecialty radiologists were performed using the Mann–Whitney U test. Agreement between both oncologists was assessed through Gwet's coefficient. RESULTS: For all but two of the five items obtained from the senior oncologist, oncologists' ratings were significantly higher for subspecialty radiologists' reports (p < 0.01); mean values from both oncologists were generally higher for subspecialty reports (p < 0.001). Agreement between the senior and junior oncologist in the rating of reports from general and subspecialty radiologists was either moderate to substantial (0.5986–0.6788) or substantial to almost perfect (0.6958–0.8358). CONCLUSIONS: According to a senior and junior oncologist, CT reports performed by subspecialized radiologists in oncologic imaging are clearer, more accurate, and more appropriate in the interpretation and conclusions compared to reports written by general radiologists. Likewise, the overall satisfaction of the oncologist from a subspecialized radiologist report is higher. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13244-021-01007-4. Springer International Publishing 2021-05-26 /pmc/articles/PMC8155173/ /pubmed/34037872 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13244-021-01007-4 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Original Article Rizzo, Stefania Del Grande, Maria Espeli, Vittoria Stathis, Anastasios Nicolino, Gabriele Maria Del Grande, Filippo Do oncologists prefer subspecialty radiology reports? A quality care study |
title | Do oncologists prefer subspecialty radiology reports? A quality care study |
title_full | Do oncologists prefer subspecialty radiology reports? A quality care study |
title_fullStr | Do oncologists prefer subspecialty radiology reports? A quality care study |
title_full_unstemmed | Do oncologists prefer subspecialty radiology reports? A quality care study |
title_short | Do oncologists prefer subspecialty radiology reports? A quality care study |
title_sort | do oncologists prefer subspecialty radiology reports? a quality care study |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8155173/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34037872 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13244-021-01007-4 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT rizzostefania dooncologistsprefersubspecialtyradiologyreportsaqualitycarestudy AT delgrandemaria dooncologistsprefersubspecialtyradiologyreportsaqualitycarestudy AT espelivittoria dooncologistsprefersubspecialtyradiologyreportsaqualitycarestudy AT stathisanastasios dooncologistsprefersubspecialtyradiologyreportsaqualitycarestudy AT nicolinogabrielemaria dooncologistsprefersubspecialtyradiologyreportsaqualitycarestudy AT delgrandefilippo dooncologistsprefersubspecialtyradiologyreportsaqualitycarestudy |