Understanding the needs of women undergoing breast ultrasound: Are male radiologists still needed?

INTRODUCTION: A trend towards less male radiologists specializing in breast ultrasound was observed. A common notion in the field of breast radiology is, that female patients feel more comfortable being treated by female radiologists. The aim of the study was to understand and report the needs of women undergoing breast ultrasound with regards to the sex of the radiologist performing the investigation. METHODS: Informed consent was obtained from all patients prior to inclusion in a prospective bi-center quality study. At center 1 (72 patients), the women were examined exclusively by female radiologists, at center 2 (100 patients) only by male radiologists. After the examination the patients were asked about their experiences and their wishes for the future. RESULTS: Overall, women made no distinction between female and male radiologists; 25% of them wanted a female radiologist and 1.2% wanted a male radiologist. The majority (74%) stated that it made no difference whether a female or male radiologist performed the examination. The majority of women in group 2, who were investigated exclusively by male radiologists, stated that they had no preferences with regard to the sex of the radiologist (93%); 5% of the women wished to be investigated solely by a female radiologist and 2% exclusively by a male radiologist. DISCUSSION: The majority of women undergoing breast ultrasound are unconcerned about the radiologist's sex. It would appear that women examined by male radiologists are less selective about the sex of the examining radiologist. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Written informed consent was obtained from all patients. All patient data were anonymized. The physicians had no access to any further personal data. National regulations did not require dedicated ethics approval with anonymized lists or retrospective questionnaires.

Humor in radiological breast cancer screening: a way of improving patient service?

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer screening is essential in detecting breast tumors, however, the examination is stressful. In this study we analyzed whether humor enhances patient satisfaction. METHODS: In this prospective randomized study 226 patients undergoing routine breast cancer screening at a single center during October 2020 to July 2021 were included. One hundred thirty-two were eligible for the study. Group 1 (66 patients) received an examination with humorous intervention, group 2 (66 patients) had a standard breast examination. In the humor group, the regular business card was replaced by a self-painted, humorous business card, which was handed to the patient at the beginning of the examination. Afterwards, patients were interviewed with a standardized questionnaire. Scores between the two study groups were compared with the Mann-Whitney U test or Fisher's exact test. P-values were adjusted with the Holm's method. Two-sided p-values < 0.05 were considered significant. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-two patients, 131 female and 1 male, (mean age 59 ± 10.6 years) remained in the final study cohort. Patients in the humor group remembered the radiologist's name better (85%/30%, P < .001), appreciated the final discussion with the radiologist more (4.67 ± 0.73-5;[5, 5] vs. 4.24 ± 1.1-5;[4, 5], P = .017), felt the radiologist was more empathetic (4.94 ± 0.24-5;[5, 5] vs.4.59 ± 0.64-5;[4, 5], P < .001), and rated him as a humorous doctor (4.91 ± 0.29-5;[5, 5] vs. 2.26 ± 1.43-1;[1, 4], P < .001). Additionally, patients in the humor group tended to experience less anxiety (p = 0.166) and felt the doctor was more competent (p = 0.094). CONCLUSION: Humor during routine breast examinations may improve patient-radiologist relationship because the radiologist is considered more empathetic and competent, patients recall the radiologist's name more easily, and value the final discussion more. TRIAL REGISTRATION: We have a general approval from our ethics committee because it is a retrospective survey, the patient lists for the doctors were anonymized and it is a qualitative study, since the clinical processes are part of the daily routine examinations and are used independently of the study. The patients have given their consent to this study and survey.

Direct communication between radiologists and patients improves the quality of imaging reports.

OBJECTIVES: We investigate in what percentage of cases and to what extent radiological reports change when radiologists directly communicate with patients after imaging examinations. METHODS: One hundred twenty-two consecutive outpatients undergoing MRI examinations at a single center were prospectively included. Radiological reports of the patients were drafted by two radiologists in consensus using only the clinical information that was made available by the referring physicians. Thereafter, one radiologist talked directly with the patient and recorded the duration of the conversation. Afterwards, the additional information from the patient was used to reevaluate the imaging studies in consensus. The radiologists determined whether the radiological report changed based on additional information and, if yes, to what extent. The degree of change was graded on a 4-point Likert scale (1, non-relevant findings, to 4, highly relevant findings). RESULTS: Following direct communication (duration 170.9 ± 53.9 s), the radiological reports of 52 patients (42.6%) were changed. Of the 52 patients, the degree of change was classified as grade 1 for 8 patients (15.4 %), grade 2 for 27 patients (51.9%), grade 3 for 13 patients (25%), and grade 4 for 4 patients (7.7%). The reasons leading to changes were missing clinical information in 50 cases (96.2%) and the lack of additional external imaging in 2 cases (3.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Radiologists should be aware that a lack of accurate information from the clinician can lead to incorrect radiological reports or diagnosis. Radiologists should communicate directly with patients, especially when the provided information is unclear, as it may significantly alter the radiological report. KEY POINTS: • Direct communication between radiologists and patients for an average of 170's resulted in a change in the radiological reports of 52 patients (42.6%). • Of the 42.6% of cases where the reports were changed, the alterations were highly relevant (grades 3 and 4) in 32.7%, indicating major changes with significant impact towards patient management.