Search

Objectives: To assess radiologists' current use of, and opinions on, structured reporting (SR) in oncologic imaging, and to provide recommendations for a structured report template. Materials and methods: An online survey with 28 questions was sent to European Society of Oncologic Imaging (ESOI) members. The questionnaire had four main parts: (1) participant information, e.g., country, workplace, experience, and current SR use; (2) SR design, e.g., numbers of sections and fields, and template use; (3) clinical impact of SR, e.g., on report quality and length, workload, and communication with clinicians; and (4) preferences for an oncology-focused structured CT report. Data analysis comprised descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, and Spearman correlation coefficients. Results: A total of 200 radiologists from 51 countries completed the survey: 57.0% currently utilized SR (57%), with a lower proportion within than outside of Europe (51.0 vs. 72.7%; p = 0.006). Among SR users, the majority observed markedly increased report quality (62.3%) and easier comparison to previous exams (53.5%), a slightly lower error rate (50.9%), and fewer calls/emails by clinicians (78.9%) due to SR. The perceived impact of SR on communication with clinicians (i.e., frequency of calls/emails) differed with radiologists' experience (p < 0.001), and experience also showed low but significant correlations with communication with clinicians (r = − 0.27, p = 0.003), report quality (r = 0.19, p = 0.043), and error rate (r = − 0.22, p = 0.016). Template use also affected the perceived impact of SR on report quality (p = 0.036). Conclusion: Radiologists regard SR in oncologic imaging favorably, with perceived positive effects on report quality, error rate, comparison of serial exams, and communication with clinicians. Clinical relevance statement: Radiologists believe that structured reporting in oncologic imaging improves report quality, decreases the error rate, and enables better communication with clinicians. Implementation of structured reporting in Europe is currently below the international level and needs society endorsement. Key Points: • The majority of oncologic imaging specialists (57% overall; 51% in Europe) use structured reporting in clinical practice. • The vast majority of oncologic imaging specialists use templates (92.1%), which are typically cancer-specific (76.2%). • Structured reporting is perceived to markedly improve report quality, communication with clinicians, and comparison to prior scans. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Education in radiology should be an integral aspect of undergraduate medical training given the essential role of imaging in patient management. Since the introduction of the European Society of Radiology undergraduate curriculum a decade ago, radiology education has evolved. Objectives: This survey aimed to assess the current status of undergraduate radiology education in Europe. Methods: An electronic survey on undergraduate teaching was distributed by the European Society of Radiology to delegates of the European Society of Radiology education committee and presidents of national radiological societies from April 1 to May 31, 2022. Data from the twenty questions were summarized using descriptive statistics. Results: There were 72 respondents from 36 countries. Radiology was taught to undergraduates in 95% (68/72), with a national or local curriculum informing radiology education in 93% (67/72). Radiology teaching was delivered by radiologists in 98% (58/59), across all years of medical school but most commonly in the fourth year of medical training (63%, 44/70), through various means including lectures, workshops, radiology department placements, online resources and simulation. Teaching hours were variable, with a minimum of 10 h reported. Conclusion: This survey's findings suggest an improvement over the last decade in the engagement of radiologists in the delivery of undergraduate radiology education in European countries affiliated with the European Society of Radiology. Key points: Survey findings indicate improvements have been made in the last decade in radiologists' involvement in undergraduate radiology education. Undergraduate radiology education is curriculum-based in over 90% of ESR-affiliated European countries surveyed. Teaching is now delivered by radiologists across all years of medical training through lectures, workshops, radiology department placements, online resources and simulation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]