Journal of medical imaging and radiation sciences · 2026
Understanding and communication of radiology reports in primary care: A cross-sectional survey.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Aminaei Danial, Kalia Vishal, Kalia Vibhuti
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND: Radiology reports are central to clinical decision-making in primary care. This study evaluated family physicians' perceptions of radiology report quality and communication.
METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of practising family physicians in London, Ontario was conducted between September 2025 and February 2026. Participants rated report completeness, clarity, format preferences, and communication effectiveness using 1-10 scales and multiple-selection questions. One-sample t-tests and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests assessed whether mean ratings differed from the neutral scale midpoint of 5; proportion z-tests assessed whether endorsement of each option exceeded 50%.
RESULTS: Fifty-one family physicians participated (approximately 17% of family physicians in London). Radiology findings were perceived to address referral questions effectively (mean 7.4 ± 1.2; p < .001 vs midpoint). Difficulty locating relevant information did not differ from the midpoint (mean 4.5 ± 2.0; p = .055). The most commonly missing element was follow-up or further diagnostic recommendations (74.5%; p < .001 vs 50%). Physicians preferred structured reporting formats (mean 6.7 ± 2.6; p < .001), and a concise impression section was the most strongly endorsed improvement (82.4%; p < .001). Contact with radiologists was infrequent (mean 3.0 ± 1.3; P < .001) but rated highly helpful when it occurred (mean 8.3 ± 1.8; p < .001).
DISCUSSION: Family physicians reported strong alignment between radiology reports and referral questions but identified gaps in follow-up recommendations and impression sections.
CONCLUSION: Targeted refinements, including structured templates with clearly defined impression components, standardised protocols for communicating urgent findings, and emerging artificial intelligence tools, may enhance radiology report communication in primary care.
PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Radiology reports provide important information that helps family doctors care for their patients. This study asked family physicians about the quality of radiology reports and how well radiologists communicate with them. This study found that reports usually answered referral questions, but many physicians wanted clearer follow-up advice, better summaries, and more structured formats. This matters because clearer reports and communication can support faster and more informed patient care.
METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of practising family physicians in London, Ontario was conducted between September 2025 and February 2026. Participants rated report completeness, clarity, format preferences, and communication effectiveness using 1-10 scales and multiple-selection questions. One-sample t-tests and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests assessed whether mean ratings differed from the neutral scale midpoint of 5; proportion z-tests assessed whether endorsement of each option exceeded 50%.
RESULTS: Fifty-one family physicians participated (approximately 17% of family physicians in London). Radiology findings were perceived to address referral questions effectively (mean 7.4 ± 1.2; p < .001 vs midpoint). Difficulty locating relevant information did not differ from the midpoint (mean 4.5 ± 2.0; p = .055). The most commonly missing element was follow-up or further diagnostic recommendations (74.5%; p < .001 vs 50%). Physicians preferred structured reporting formats (mean 6.7 ± 2.6; p < .001), and a concise impression section was the most strongly endorsed improvement (82.4%; p < .001). Contact with radiologists was infrequent (mean 3.0 ± 1.3; P < .001) but rated highly helpful when it occurred (mean 8.3 ± 1.8; p < .001).
DISCUSSION: Family physicians reported strong alignment between radiology reports and referral questions but identified gaps in follow-up recommendations and impression sections.
CONCLUSION: Targeted refinements, including structured templates with clearly defined impression components, standardised protocols for communicating urgent findings, and emerging artificial intelligence tools, may enhance radiology report communication in primary care.
PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Radiology reports provide important information that helps family doctors care for their patients. This study asked family physicians about the quality of radiology reports and how well radiologists communicate with them. This study found that reports usually answered referral questions, but many physicians wanted clearer follow-up advice, better summaries, and more structured formats. This matters because clearer reports and communication can support faster and more informed patient care.