By Jim Knaub
A new study published in the February issue of the Journal of the American College of Radiology reports that 95% of primary care physicians prefer to deliver the results of radiology examinations to their patients. So if the customer is always right—and if the referring physician is the customer in this case—radiology departments need to carefully consider how they release results directly to their patients.
“There is considerable interest in improving radiology reporting practices. However, as radiologists propose measures to improve reporting, it is wise to obtain an understanding of the needs and opinions of referring physicians, particularly primary care physicians, regarding these measures so that their feedback and ideas can be incorporated into any change in practice,” says study author Andrew J. Gunn, MD.
Radiology departments that send results directly to patients seem to understand this. In our January issue, Radiology Today discussed an RSNA session about reporting results directly to patients. Last year, Penn Medicine in Philadelphia launched a pilot program in direct-to-patient reporting. Initially, the organization gave patients access to their exam reports after a seven-day delay. Those seven days give the referring physican time to contact the patient first, exactly how Gunn’s study said referrers prefer it. After only a few patients experienced problems—there weren’t many complaints, and the radiologists weren’t swamped with calls from patients or referrers—they’ve since reduced the delay to three business days.
“Continuing improvements in radiology reporting practices are essential to the service that radiologists provide to patients and referring physicians. These improvements, however, should consider the preferences of both patients and referring physicians to optimize care. Future research, such as patient focus groups, patient satisfaction surveys, and surveying other medical specialties is necessary to better delineate and understand these preferences,” Gunn says.
Timing the release of reports to patients so that their treating physician has sufficient time to contact the patient and explain results seems to be a fairly obvious and smart move. While technology capabilities of the Internet age create an expectation of immediacy, delivering sensitive medical information is different from downloading an app or an e-book from Amazon. While healthcare is evaluted increasingly like other businesses, medicine can’t lose sight of that difference and must think critically about changes to medical practice workflow. Of course, being cautious about change does not equal being utterly resistant to it.
— Jim Knaub is editor of Radiology Today