Here’s another. The findings are concerning for appendicitis.
And another. The appendix is dilated and mildly thick walled with suggestion of mild surrounding inflammatory change, although there is air within the lumen. There is an appendicolith at the base of the cecum. The findings are suspicious for mild acute appendicitis. Clinical and laboratory correlation are recommended. [Digression: You can't diagnose appendicitis with lab tests.]
Even radiologists are questioning the way their colleagues dictate reports. From an editorial in the journal Applied Radiology: The report might say “there appears to be a nodule in the right lower lobe.” If you’re wrong, and there isn’t a nodule in the right lower lobe, you’re covered because you never actually said there was a nodule, only that there appeared to be a nodule, and we all know that nothing is ever as it appears.
Some Stanford researchers looked at radiology reports and found that the most frequent terms used to modify conclusions were probable, consistent with, consider, likely, suggestive, no definite evidence, suspicious, cannot exclude, not likely, maybe and possible. They surveyed radiologists and clinicians and found wide variations in what these words meant to each physician regarding the specifics of whether a hypothetical lesion should be biopsied.
An editorial in the journal Radiology scorned the use of the often-seen phrase if clinically indicated.
I could go on.
Do you know of similar examples of radiologic ambiguity?
Is there a solution to this problem?
A version of this post appeared on Sermo yesterday with interesting comments. About 2/3 of those who voted said there is no solution to the problem. Some commenters said the radiologists are just describing what they see.
46 comments:
As the surgeon you need to read it yourself BEFORE looking at the radiology report then only use the report to make sure you didn't overlook something. Radiologists are NOT clinicians.
Thanks for the comment. You didn't have to tell me radiologists are not clinicians. I was aware of that. I read all my own imaging to the extent possible. I also discuss any issues in person with a radiologist. I often get a second radiologist's opinion too. Unfortunately, I can't do in person discussions or second opinions at night when the radiologist is in Australia.
I have had the opportunity to talk to overseas radiologist at night with difficult cases and have found them to be very helpful on occasion. The techs can hook you up and tell you how to get in touch with them(and tell you if they are any good). It can be fun to have a brief moment of talking to someone in a more respectful and less hurried culture.
Yes. I've talked to them too. It sometimes takes a while to get the right one on the phone and you usually do not know them at all. There are at least 40 radiologists in the outsourced group we use.
Having only worked in radiology for the summer I'm in no way an expert, but there is a reason radiology responses are sometimes vague. Radiology isn't just a machine you put patients into and get a diagnosis out of. Clinical correlation is always important and that's the reason it's important to give a good history when requesting a scan.
A mild inflammatory change (dirty fat which is very hard to report objectively or measure) with a mild thickening of the appendix wall is probably appendicitis if it has the correct clinical history. But in a jaundiced patient with RUQ pain this finding would probably be of no significance.
Another example is a fracture line on plain xray of a wrist. If there is no pain and no trauma, it probably isn't a fracture, but the radiologist has no way of examining the patient himself so he'll have to say just that.
Radiologists try to be objective and measure everything that they can, but there are limits. Imaging is very dynamic, movement in the scanner, body fat and peristaltic movement may have an effect on the item measured.
Last point, it varies between radiologists how objective they try to be. Some would write "appears to be a nodule at the base of the lung". I would never write that, I'd decide on my own whether the (small, questionable) nodule is something of significance or not and then say something like "small nodule at the base of the lung of uncertain etiology".
The biggest issue I hear among my colleagues relating to radiology reports is that the radiologist isn't vague but too directive. Ovarian torsion is a good example. This is a clinical diagnosis and no amount of radiologic findings are going to proscribe precisely what to do in a given patient. In this sense being vague may be appropriate since the radiologist cannot know the context from which to estimate the significance of the radiographic findings. I'd be content with 'just tell me what you see.'
Thanks, and I agree that this is a problem.
One idea is that radiologists report imaging studies without any history provided (blind reporting), so as not to bias their reporting.
A colleague recently referred a patient for a hip MRI, looking for FAO (functional acetabular impingement). The radiologist phoned my colleague and said that he really wasn't sure there was much on the scans, but if he wanted, he would write in the report that FAI 'could not be ruled out', or was 'suspicious' or whatever.
Out in private practice, radiologists are running a business and need to keep their referring surgeons happy. Blind reporting would solve that particular problem.
I was taught in medical school that investigations are there mainly to support the diagnosis that already been made based on sound clinical evaluation of history and clinical examination. Therefore,radiological reports will be vague if clinical evaluation has no bearing of any directions.
Thanks for the comments. I've often wondered why radiologists say they want clinical information too. One, they really aren't good clinicians. Two, what difference does the history really make? Just tell me what you see.
Some radiologists have told me that they put explicit instruction like "consider MRI" because they think some clinicians need help to decide what to do next.
Interesting comment about the radiologist wanting to not preclude the clinician from the diagnosis of impingement. I had not heard of that before but it is a good point.
I have to disagree, radiologists can be very good clinicians. I don´t think that our work (i´m a radiologist) is just describing what we see but instead according to the sex, age, clinical background, signs and symptoms we can offer an accurate diagnosis. Maybe those things aren´t that important for an appendicitis but for other more complex pathology it is. And other thing on giving clinical information and the suspicious pathology, it´s very important for doing a correct protocol for the patient and adjust the radiation dose!, it´s not the same doing a ct to rule out appendicitis, mesenteric ischemia or pancreatitis.
And as everything in medicine, there is a spectrum in diseases. Really advanced and obvious appendicitis to report on one side and minimal, and maybe subjective, inflammatory changes that one can´t totally assure it´s appendicitis on the other.
Well I have a very fresh example from two weeks ago.
The house officer (Intern you say in the US ?) called me up and was upset. She had just got a referral for a CT/urography back from the senior radiologist. He refused to perform the examination on a patient who had presented with Gross Hematuria after finding out that I (that is me "Anonymous") a couple of days previously had diagnosed a urinary bladder cancer.
His argument was: "Why should I do this, you have already found the reason of the Gross Hematuria"
It ended with me calling this Senior Radiologist, and he was all upset over the House officer who "dared to demand from him anything"
Between breaths, I explained to him that she was ABSOLUTELY right. He burst out in long explanations of how many years he had been working and that he was a personal friend of this-and-that famous Urologist...blablabla..
Fine I said, in a calm fashion, and continued: If you want to take 100 % personal responsibility for the patient NOT having a Panurothelial transitional cell carcinoma also affecting either ureter and/or the renal Pelvis, please give it in writing...
Needless to say, we got our CT-Urography ASAP.
To make it clear: We - the clinicians are the experts in clinical diagnosis, they - the Radiologists - are the experts in Radiology.
End of Story
Interesting story. This proves the point that talking to each other leads to understanding.
Exactly, and it should be a two-way communication. This is especially important when a junior doctor actually is doing the very right thing. She shouldn´t be shut down by a senior doctor from a service speciality, just because he or she is having a bad day, a chronic ulcer or any other weird reason :)
Reading the radiology reports one becomes aware of the carefully drafted prose used by radiologists and, one is aware of the fact that radiologists are trained and indoctrinated to report their “impressions” based on the defensive medicine dictum. Thus, the reports are often vague and miss the intended purpose: to provide an accurate diagnosis and/or assist in diagnosing.
I would like to suggest that the applications of the methodology of evidence-based radiology (EBR) promise a profound influence to improve the validity of the radiological “impression” and thereby diminish the nebulous prose that, at times, we experience whilst reading a radiology report.
The foundation of EBR provides the scientific infrastructure to ascertain validity (Internal validity, external validity, precision, et cetera), and has been introduced as a new approach to the practice of radiology.
The practice of radiology includes both diagnostic and interventional modalities; hence the fundamental concepts of Evidence-based Clinical Practice are pertinent. The Centre for Evidence-Based Radiology in Ireland provides a didactic material tailored to radiologist interested in learning the principles of EBR as they apply to diagnostic and therapeutic imaging. For those radiologists interested in advance training in the field of EBR, fellowship training is also available in radiological informatics and radiological imaging.
When clinicians order radiology investigations, they are asking now days: (1) what is the post-test probability of disease? Or (2) Will the interpretation of the test(s) results or “impression” alters the probability of a disease so that the clinician is confident in starting the best therapeutic intervention or (3) conversely, based on the radiologist impression, the clinician can exclude a suspected disease or pathology. If the latter is true, the clinician will seek further consultation from the radiologist to select the most appropriate test.
After reading the radiology report, the ordering physician can combine the diagnostic accuracy or end-points provided by the radiologist, e.g., sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, with the accuracy derived from the physical findings, as highlighted in Evidence Based-Physical-Diagnosis.
Thus, by mastering the foundations of EBR, specifically as they relate to diagnostic or interventional radiology the reports will be devoid of nebulous jargon and will express instead, valid measures that aid with confidence in the clinical decision making process.
In terms of medical malpractice avoidance, if the radiology reports are narrated with diagnostic accuracy, the diagnostic report(s) will stand in its merits as evidence, and accepted clinical practice, thus standard of care.
I agree with the most recent post. I have to call you out on a couple of things Skeptical;
On one hand, you want the radiologist to simply tell you what he/she sees without any context and provide an accurate diagnosis. The less information they receive about patient history (which should be collected by the technologist or written on the prescription), the more vague the report is likely be. You want a diagnosis from the radiologist without any background information, and what little is provided is vague itself.
On the other hand, you are expecting them to put their ass on the line with this little amount of information and you complain when they ask for more. Do you not understand that appearances on any single radiological examination can be similar for mulitple diagnoses? Sometimes multiple imaging studies are needed to collect enough information for a positive diagnosis. There is no one-stop exam that can evaluate every pathology. When the radiologist asks you for clinical information, it is usually for two reasons; To back up the suspected diagnosis or to provide a lot of evidence that the prelim was incorrect. If they suggest another type of examination, it is because they aren't sure of a diagnosis based on the amount of info they collected from the original exam... it's to help you out. Believe it or not, they are on your team!
It is far too common these says for physicians of any specialization to avoid looking at the patient in their entirety. That is, most only focus on their specialty without asking any questions outside their area of expertise that might be relevant to a diagnosis. Whether because of ego, defensive medicine, plain laziness, or even stupidity patients are forced to put the pieces together themselves based on little tidbits of information gathered by because of this apathy from each specialist... with a little help from google. The medical field is outraged at the attempts of lay people to find information on their own, but as a health care provider myself, I suggest it is because we are not giving them the information they are looking for (and google is free). What else are they supposed to do?
I applaud any radiologist who has an open mind to consider pertinent information outside of what is presented on the monitor before them, and any physician who extends beyond their comfort zone to consider more than just their specialty.
I'm surprised to see you stereotype an entire group of physicians as "not good clinicians". It shows a lot of ignorance on your behalf, and a narrow-minded view of the radiology field. Where would your career be without radiologists?
I appreciate your taking the time to comment.
I am fortunate to have worked with mostly excellent radiologists over the years. Except for IR, I have rarely if ever seen a radiologist even touch a patient, let alone examine one. They may know clinical medicine but I don't think they are really clinicians.
I should have put this thought in the blog. I think many of us are a little jealous of the fact that radiologists can say what they think, but in most cases we (e.g., surgeons) have to make the difficult decisions like whether to operate on a patient.
"Possible mild peri-appendiceal inflammation" is not helpful in the decision-making process. If that is truly what was seen, then so be it. I had to decide what to do at 3 in the morning. The Radiologist went on to read the next CT.
Yes, I know *I* chose to be a surgeon and not a radiologist.
Here I have to reply to Anon of his/her posting [August 11, 2012 11:03 AM]- I think Sceptical Scalpel is really on the right track: Radiologists are (in general) really good Radiologists. But not Clincians in the way we define the Clinician. The Clinician has a constant influx of data, the Patient story combined with labtests, combined with physical examination, combined with Radiology-evidence, and not to forget: most often a process going on for days and sometimes weeks (in complicated cases), when you have to judge, weigh and integrate all incoming data, past data and the continuos flow of changes in all different aspects. The Clinician has the total integrated picture of the patient - this is not the case for the (EXCELLENT) Radiologist (and we truely respect all of you and cherish your very helpul accomplishments). To make it easier: Is the Radiologist also a good Anaestesiologist ? Well No - and that goes for the majority of us dealing with surgical matters too. Is the Radiologist also a good labdoctor/Virologist/Psychiatrist/ whatever-speciality-we can-think-of too ? Of course not - AND that is ther very same for us Surgeons or Urologists too. I have had the great pleasure to work with some really highly qualified and seasoned Uro-Radiologists, in different hospitals, for the last 20 years - and they have been really great, efficient, updated, intelligent, clever and very professional in their work,serviceminded and extremelly accurate -but are they good clinical Urologists ? My reply is: No.
Thanks for the support. I think you made my point better than I did.
Please forgive me if this is a redundant post; I have not read all the posts here.
I always believed a surgeon should look at ALL x-rays. . .even a trivial pre-op "normal" CXR.
Having said that, if it is 2 am, the ER doc calls me for an appy, I get-up, look at the CT, act on it, come to surgery, remove the appendix and dictate my findings in my pre-op H and P of what the CT or radiograph says, then I, not the radiologist, should be paid for the reading. It does NOT count when I get a phone call, in the recovery room, by a radiologist, who says, "Doc...did you see that young lady last night...she has appendicitis."
"Sure...did...operation was done 2 hours ago."
Trim waste in medical spending right there. Radiologists are "consultants" too...why "consult" them and ask them to READ everything if you don't need them to read "everything." I don't need them to read everything...if I'm not sure...I'll "consult" them...otherwise, I'll order the CT, act on it.
No...I actually LOVE radiologists...they're great where I work. They teach me stuff all the time, and I show them specimens and operative videos. It is a team. If they screw up, I call them, and ask them to dictate an addendum...and they will. If I screw up, they call me and say, "Hey...you missed one."
True teamwork. Great people...but I don't always need them...and they don't always need me.
Oh..one more thought. Because they are "consultants" and "doctors" when we ask for a consult, like a clinician, they should come down to the ER (or the Ward), get a stethoscope, perform a complete consultation, exam, look at labs, prior films, talk to family, and then recommend a radiographic intervention/test. This crap of "Every patient with an abdominal CT MUST have oral contrast or I won't read it because it increases MY liability" should warrent a visit to the ED, by the radiologist, to put the NG tube in, get puked on by the distended tender, abdomen of the obstructed patient, and explain why you're going to pump in a half-gallon of gastrograffin while they're puking because you need a "better study". Oh..and they should make rounds and follow-up their "consults", too.
Too damn much Prima Donna crap. Consultants? Yes you are...act like one. And you're a doctor, too.
A radiologist with a stethoscope? Please send me a photo of that when and if it ever occurs. I think you have a better chance of getting a picture of the Loch Ness monster.
Just a message to Skeptical Scalpel - If ever you required any form of imaging for yourself or your family member for a complaint, I doubt very much you would be relying on your own interpretation skills of it as a surgeon. If you want to interpret images - get board certified first!
Yes, I would prefer a timely, unambiguous reading by a board- certified radiologist who I could go over the images with even at 2 am. Unfortunately, that is not always possible.
Why would radiology reports be amended to look like original reports?What happens to the original report? Defensive medicine?
I'm not sure what your questions are about but I'll try to answer.
Reports can be amended as long as the change is dated and timed. This is automatic with electronic records. The original report is unchanged. The amended text goes in as an addendum at the bottom of the original.
It's not necessarily defensive medicine. The radiologist could have re-reviewed the images or asked a colleague to look at them. Since the original is still there, there is no way to change it to be more defensive.
I was looking for something about radiology programs. Glad to come across this post. Good job.
Would it be highly unusual to find 10 changed radiology reports in you records.
Depends on the time frame, but 10 in one or two years would be very unusual.
I think 5 in the same year. Possibly more.
I'd say that's a significant number of changed reports. You might have a quality issue.
No sure what that means?
My oppion is radiologists dont really care about what they are looking at, to rushed to report what they
See and have no one to answer to when extremely vague reports are an issue. I dont see doctors
Writing reports and challenging what is written by radiologists or not written. If radiologists have the
Final say then the law needs to be more firm about how films are read.
Thanks for commeneting. I think most radiologists do care about what they are looking at. I have writtennotes in charts saying I disagreed with a radiologist's report. It happens.
I want to know how a radiologist can say:
FINDINGS: An enhancing 4 x 3 cm enhancing focus posterior to the right
lobe of the thyroid is suggestive of an adenoma (series 10 image 41). A
venous structure is noted to extend inferiorly from the lesion.
Dimensions were given. This is suggestive of an adenoma. So if it's not and adenoma, what is it? Parathyroids are tiny and not easily detectable.
Kat, most radiologists would not give a definitive diagnosis such as adenoma, which must be made by a pathologist. It could be a carcinoma. To call it an adenoma would be potentially misleading.
You are correct that a normal parathyroid is measure in mm not cm. Even a parathyroid tumor would rarely grow to 4 x 3 cm.
Old thread sure, but I'd like to add my two cents, there are a lot of silly statements in this thread:
1) "Have radiologist read studies without clinical information". OK, by that logic, you should examine and diagnose patients without taking any history. This isn't a game, patients get substandard treatment all the time due to lack of basic communication skills among doctors. If you haven't heard of positive predictive value and pretest probability, I suggest you read up on it, and stop ordering expensive studies until you get up to speed.
2) "Radiologists aren't clinicians because they don't wear a stethoscope". Again, a moronic statement, there are many types of doctor, some with wide generalist skills like internal medicine or family practice, others with a very specalized and therefore limited set of skills, like radiologists or surgeons. And some would argue that sonography is a massive upgrade on auscultation.
3) "Why won't they just tell me if it's appendicitis 100% yes or no". You don't really understand how scientific tests work, do you? Tell me if you find a 100% sensitive and specific test, so I can go buy shares in the company.
Mayoman, thanks for commenting. I don't know where you got the statements you quoted in your comment. Quotes are usually statements that are cited word for word. No one, myself or commenter, said what you quoted.
Comments on this post seem to be going along the lines of clinicians (those who actively take care of patients) and radiologists.
I happen to know a few things about positive and negative predictive values and likelihood ratios. They are attempts to quantify the unquantifiable, particularly when it comes to something as subjective as a reading and the pretest probability is a guess. If the pretest probability is 60% and the CT reading makes it 75%, that's still not much help. Removing a normal appendix should not occur more than 4% or 5% of the time.
No one said radiologists aren't clinicians because they don't wear stethoscoipes. I simply said I had never seen a radiologist with a stethoscope. That is still the case.
No one said tell me if it's appendicitis 100% yes or no either. If a radiologist doesn't know, why not just say, "I don't know" instead of using vague CYA terms? I have told patients many times that I don't know what's wrong with them, but that I would keep trying to find out.
You ignored the many favorable things I said about radiologists in the post and in the comments. That's OK. You can say whatever you want.
I worked with many fine radiologists over the years and the helped me countless times.
Thanks for the reply on an old thread, but seriously, why bother being pedantic about the quotes. It was clear from the content that they were paraphrased quotes, intended to relay the essence of previous comments in a conversational style, so why bother pretending to be confused about where I sourced them? To be pedantic about it, as you said yourself, "Quotes are usually statements that are cited word for word". Correct, "usually", but not always. Conversational paraphrasing is an accepted exception to this. This was a pointless attempt to nitpick a valid literary style, why bother?
As regards the point about pre-test probability, it is crucial to this whole discussion. There is no such thing as a test that tells you if a certain diagnosis is certain or not. Sorry, medicine is not that easy. You feel removing a normal appendix should only happen 4-5% of the time, and infer that unclear radiology reports increase this rate. It makes the assumption that reading a CT scan is simply a case of looking at the screen and announcing if there is appendicitis or not. You said it yourself "just tell me what you see". Guess what? Malignancy, trauma, infection, inflammation can all look identical. 100% identical. There are case series for trainees that illustrate this. The screen doesn't turn yellow for appendicitis, red for trauma, etc.
As somebody previously commented, they wouldn't diagnose appendicitis based on a blood test. True, but would you operate without knowing the white cell count (if it was easily available), the patient's temperature, etc? I removed over 100 appendixes, and used every strand of info I could get to help my decision to operate, including the greatest test for unclear cases (if at all possible), time. None of these tests diagnose appendicitis, but they all add a little to the overall clinical picture, as do the CT/MRI/US findings. You complained in a previous report that a radiologist can report mild appendiceal stranding, and potter off while you have to make a 3am call whether or not to operate. The implication (which is basically the thrust of this entire blog) was that the radiologist let you down, they should have called it for you. Sorry, it doesn't work that way, if there was stranding, there was stranding, it can mean many things, including appendicitis. Medicine is hard. Deal with it. You want a definite call on a case, yet you wondering what difference a clinical history made to radiologists. Which is why I advised you to try and get a better grasp of pretest probability.
You say that you get on well with radiologists, yet some of your postings openly insult the profession. Statements such as radiologists are just not good clinicians, they never put a hand on a patient, etc. Most of my group, including myself, combine diagnostics with procedures. Outpatients, admissions, ward rounds, and yes, stethoscopes, used as competently as most surgeons. I have also being in the difficult position of reading scans, and deciding whether or not I just preform a difficult intervention (often at times such as 3am, just like you), based on combined image findings, lab results, and clinical findings. No one piece of the puzzle provides the answer, and the decision to intervene occasionally turns out to be unwise.
Applying best practice scientific method (including telling the reporting radiologist what is known so far in the case - this is basic common sense), while accepting that some small degree of uncertainty will always remain, is the essence of diagnostic medicine.
Mayoman, I appreciate your points but call your attention to this piece from the JACR entitled "Do not hedge when there is certainty." http://www.jacr.org/article/S1546-1440(16)30803-1/abstract
Believe it or not I just read this whole thread because I, a layperson (ok I have a science undergrad but am an engineer now) am trying to figure out what further tests we should do, on my puppy, who has a leg bruise or a bone infection. This thread is helpful as I'm always trying to figure out, when I hear radiology reports about me or my kids, if "the thing seen" is a "likely to be X" or a "could be X" or a "we can't entirely rule X out." Facing the reality that even patients, not just clinicians and radiologists, are also in the complex matrix of figure out when to further test and when to wait.
I've decided to wait, in my puppy, as his symptoms are improving (he's walking better....probably wouldn't be if it were an infection, so hopefully just trauma and inflammation.) As Mayoman said very nicely, often time, to see which way symptoms trend, is very telling.
Sorry for the delayed response. I was out of the country. I think you are doing the right thing by waiting. I hope it turns out OK.
I figure I'll put in my two cents worth. Full disclosure up front, I am applying to radiology residency this year so am 1) limited in experience and 2) of course going to be biased toward defending my chosen path (as is common among all in medicine)
Part of the issue in radiology is simply the demand of the volume of images a radiologist is required to read. I have been with many radiologists that would love to have the time to dig into the history or even "gasp" go see the patient for themselves (admittedly this is not as common a desire). However, I have seen attending radiologists read hundreds of studies in a day that include CT and MRI in addition to plain films. They simply don't have extra time. This is why history and pertinent information is so important to be given when imaging is ordered (I have seen numerous that just say "pain" or have seen a few that are just made up because the referring physician didn't seem to think it was important). I feel this is where the application of machine learning/deep learning algorithms will benefit radiology. By automating a lot of processes, like finding and measuring lung nodules (which is enjoyed by no one) or even somehow digging through reports and giving relevant information for the given indication. This may free up radiologists to spend more time on complicated cases and provide more clinically informed/relevant reports.
I think it is also important to note that radiologists do what one radiologist referred to as a "legal check". Which was after looking at the reason for the exam they have to look at the complete study and make sure to not miss even a subtle finding in an area not related to the given indication. Because, in the end, they are responsible for anything and everything in the provided imaging which is why this information is included in the report regardless if it is relevant or not. Though, it seems a lot will bury the non-relevant information in the body of the report and try to stick with pertinent findings in the impression to help the referring physician who understandably doesn't care about random findings that have no bearing on the reason they ordered the study.
It seems to me hedging in reports stems from a few things. One being medical legal reasons (occurs in all aspects of medicine even though it isn't always right or of benefit for the patient). Another being that the radiologist has been chewed out and belittled too many times by referring physicians for "diagnosing their patient". It appears to me (being on the sidelines still and the observing medical student) that a lot of radiologists simply give up and stop doing things like having discussions with other physicians about appropriate imaging because the referring surgeon/ER physician/whoever isn't receptive and belittles them or simply because they don't have the time. Also, hedging happens because there is a lot of overlap in imaging findings and without proper history or labs or further imaging it's impossible to differentiate. And without adequate time to search the charts or see the patient, the dreaded "Correlate clinically" is written and the radiologist moves on to the next on the never ending list of studies.
Just an F.Y.I, I made it to this blog post because of trying to find information on exactly what referring physicians want in reports (it's not easy information to find and varies greatly, physicians are not always easy to please).
Anon, thank you for your thoughtful comments.
You made a number of good points. It's interesting that you can't find much about what we want on radiology reports. I had never considered that. Maybe it's a good idea for a research paper.
I've written a few posts about radiology. Search my blog for them if you have time.
Although this is an old post, I'd like to chime in with the perspective of a patient. Thank you, Scalpel, for your fascinating blog. As a middle-aged person who never had surgery at all until this year, when I've had five surgeries in six months, your blog has given some great information on things I've wondered about in the field of medicine.
During the many scans I've had recently, I've been surprised to learn that radiology technicians and radiologists don't seem to have any background on my medical condition or previous surgeries, but make their conclusions without it. I would assume they would need that info to be helpful in the diagnostic process.
I recently had an ultrasound as a follow-up after surgery to repair my ureter. The repair was done by re-implanting the ureter with the bladder flap technique. On the website of my hospital, I'm able to read the radiologist's report. It was a little alarming to read (I'm of course paraphrasing) that they noticed a mass on or near my bladder which they guessed might be a hematoma. I figured that the "mass" might be the bladder flap but it was still troubling until I was able to contact my doctor and he did confirm that the newly-made flap was what they were seeing and he reassured me that there was no "mass".
I'm glad that my hospital makes those reports available to me but I could have done with a disclaimer as to how much "spitballing" was likely to be in those reports. I agree with some of the comments above: why wouldn't the doctor include that sort of pertinent information, for the benefit of radiology? Alternatively, why don't radiology techs or the radiologists look into a patient's history?
Is there any sort of short summary of a patient's chart/history that could be quickly read or is it a matter of digging through a mountain of info? If medical professionals don't have the time to gather important information that could be crucial to a diagnosis, then the whole system needs a major over-haul. After my recent medical experiences, the thing that strikes me is the need for better communication all throughout the system. It seems like there could be a specialty within the medical field in which people just oversee the relaying of information or track patients individually as they navigate their various tests, procedures and surgeries.
Thanks for letting me add my two cents and thanks to all the people who choose medicine as a career, I'm amazed to see the burdens you accept, on a daily basis, for the benefit of others.
Your comment about lack of communication is correct. There is an ongoing misunderstanding of the process of diagnosis in radiology. Many, sadly, think the imaging revels all like a labelled map, and there is no need to give any clinical context when ordering a study (see comments earlier on the thread). Many get their clerk to order studies, who have no idea why the scan is being requested.
This misunderstanding of diagnostics (and the basic principals of pretest probability which are relevant to any scientific test) is typically followed by annoyance with the sadly predictable uncertainty expressed in the report.
Anonymous at 3:26 PM, thank you for your comments. Most doctors would agree with you that the electronic medical record is inadequate. Important information is obscured by the sheer volume of extraneous material and the difficulty in navigating through the many screens. It would be nice if a short summary could be provided for patients and physicians alike. Unfortunately, I don't think it's going to happen as long as physicians are being paid by the word.
Anonymous at 5:03 PM, thank you as well. You also highlight the failure of the current electronic medical record software to facilitate communication among clinicians. Back in the day, a progress note was the way to let other clinicians know what you were thinking when you wrote it. Now there's a contest to see who can write the longest progress note. My observation is that the longer the progress note is, the less useful information it contains. I do agree that ordering physicians should give radiologists some idea of what they are looking for when they order a study.
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.