21st Century Rad: Thanks, in part, to the 21st Century Cures Act, what was once a memorandum of understanding between clinicians has quickly become the primary fount of information for patients and referring physicians alike.
During his ARRS26 presentation, Yale emergency rad Jonathan Mezrich, MD, denoted what your typical patient can—and can’t—decipher:
- Plain anatomical terms (right knee), simple descriptions (mass, fluid), and clear action language (biopsy recommended) are definite yeas.
- Jargon such as “Hounsfield units” or “restricted diffusion” are meaningless nays to laypeople.
- Avoid Latin (e.g., hepatomegaly or pneumothorax) when simple will suffice.
- “Negative” or “unremarkable” are often misinterpreted; patients clock “negative” as a bad thing, whereas “unremarkable” sounds dismissive, rather than normal.
A Tale of Two Readers: Today, some 44% of patients read their imaging results before speaking to the ordering provider. Meanwhile, referring physicians frequently identify unclear language, typographical errors, and failure to answer the clinical question as top reporting issues. Adding that seemingly small errors like typos can cause consternation for end-readers, Mezrich added to his list accordingly:
- Target a sixth to eighth grade reading level to maximize comprehension and reduce anxiety.
- Top load your impression or summary statement, so no one has to go hunting.
- Is a finding benign? Say so explicitly to prevent unnecessary worry.
- Ensure the report directly addresses the concern that prompted the study.
- Referring physicians find a rad’s recommendations clinically useful and often want more guidance than they currently receive.
RadFYI: Rads reviewing their peers does have its limits. Implementing structured feedback from referring physicians is a novel approach to identify problems that typically go unnoticed, such as confusing terminology and poor clinical correlation.
Leave a Reply