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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rizzo, Stefania, Del Grande, Maria, Espeli, Vittoria, Stathis, Anastasios, Nicolino, Gabriele Maria, Del Grande, Filippo
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