Structured reporting: if, why, when, how—and at what expense? Results of a focus group meeting of radiology professionals from eight countries

Abstract

Abstract Purpose To determine why, despite growing evidence that radiologists and referring physicians prefer structured reporting (SR) to free text (FT) reporting, SR has not been widely adopted in most radiology departments. Methods A focus group was formed consisting of 11 radiology professionals from eight countries. Eight topics were submitted for discussion. The meeting was videotaped, transcribed, and analyzed according to the principles of qualitative healthcare research. Results Perceived advantages of SR were facilitation of research, easy comparison, discouragement of ambiguous reports, embedded links to images, highlighting important findings, not having to dictate text nobody will read, and automatic translation of teleradiology reports. Being compelled to report within a rigid frame was judged unacceptable. Personal convictions appeared to have high emotional value. It was felt that other healthcare stakeholders would impose SR without regard to what radiologists thought of it. If the industry were to provide ready-made templates for selected examinations, most radiologists would use them. Conclusion If radiologists can be convinced of the advantages of SR and the risks associated with failing to participate actively in its implementation, they will take a positive stand. The industry should propose technology allowing SR without compromising accuracy, completeness, workflows, and cost-benefit balance. Main Messages • Structured reporting offers radiologists opportunities to improve their service to other stakeholders. • If radiologists can be convinced of the advantages of structured reporting, they may become early adopters. • The healthcare industry should propose technology allowing structured reporting. • Structured reporting will fail if it compromises accuracy, completeness, workflows or cost-benefit balance.