Verbal notification of radiology results: are radiologists meeting expectations?

BACKGROUND: Delayed communication of radiographic findings is associated with poor patient outcomes and significant medicolegal risk. Radiologists verbally contact referring practitioners with urgent findings, although practitioner's expectations regarding notification have rarely been examined. AIM: To assess differences in preferred practice between radiologists and referring practitioners in the verbal communication of urgent radiology findings. METHODS: For 33 clinical stems, respondents were asked if they would issue (radiologists) or expect to receive (referring practitioners) verbal notification of results or routine written communication only. Surveys were emailed to radiologists and referring practitioners of varying experience at a tertiary referral hospital in Melbourne, Victoria. RESULTS: A total of 97 survey responses was received. Eighty responses were from referring practitioners and 17 from radiologists. Referring practitioners were seen to slightly prefer verbal notification more often than issued by radiologists overall (61%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 57-66% verbal notification expected vs 58%; 95% CI 52-64% issued). More senior referring practitioners with greater than 10 years' experience expected verbal notification more often (67%; 95% CI 59-75%), and more senior radiologists issued verbal reports less often (54%; 95% CI 39-69%). More junior referring practitioners, for example, registrars or fellows, expected notification less often overall (59%; 95% CI 43-76%). Subgroup analysis demonstrated statistically significant differences in notification preferences for certain clinical scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: Overall results show fair correlation between referrer's expectations of verbal notification and the provision of verbal notification by radiologists. However, there were discrepancies in the practice and preferences of more junior and senior practitioners in certain clinical scenarios.

Grading lumbar foraminal stenosis - Interrater agreement of radiologists and radiology trainees before and after education of a standardised grading scale.

INTRODUCTION: Lumbar foraminal stenosis is a key contributor to low back pain. Imaging, particularly MRI, is commonly used in the assessment of foraminal stenosis, contributing to treatment planning. The adoption of a standardised grading system to try and improve inter-rater agreement is thought to be of importance. Our study aims to assess the variability of grading lumbar foraminal stenosis amongst reporting doctors, determine whether education about a validated grading scale increases agreement, and determine if these changes persist over time. METHODS: A single-site study involving MRI reporting registrars/radiologists was performed. Participants were shown select MRI images and asked to grade the degree of stenosis in each on a 4-point scale. Subsequently, they were educated about Lee et al's grading system and asked to re-grade the cases 1 and 6 weeks later. The level of agreement was calculated using Gwet's AC1 coefficient and Krippendorff's Alpha. RESULTS: The baseline level of agreement was substantial (AC1 = 0.71). This decreased to a moderate level of agreement post-intervention (AC1 = 0.575 at 1-week, P-value 0.033 and AC1 = 0.598 at 6 weeks, P-value 0.012). A grading of severe stenosis was 21% more likely 6 weeks post-education. CONCLUSION: The baseline agreement at our institution was substantial, thought to be due to the single-centre nature of the study. Moderate agreement was achieved after education regarding the Lee et al.'s scale, in-line with other studies, with changes maintained at 6 weeks, showing retention of the scale parameters. Grading of severe stenosis was more common post intervention.