Comparison of Accuracy and Speed of Information Identification by Nonpathologists in Synoptic Reports With Different Formats

Abstract

Context.— The College of American Pathologists requires synoptic reports for specific types of pathology reports. Objective.— To compare the accuracy and speed of information retrieval in synoptic reports of different formats. Design.— We assessed the performance of 28 nonpathologists from 4 different types of users (cancer registrars, MDs, medical non–MDs, and nonmedical) at identifying specific information in various formatted synoptic reports, using a computerized quiz that measured both accuracy and speed. Results.— There was no significant difference in the accuracy of data identification for any user group or in any format. While there were significant differences in raw time between users, these were eliminated when normalized times were used. Compared with the standard format of a required data element (RDE) and response on 1 line, both a list of responses without an RDE (21%, P < .001) and a paired response with more concise text (33%, P < .001) were significantly faster. In contrast, both the 2-line format (RDE header on one line, response indented on the second line) (12%, P < .001) and a report with the RDE response pairs in a random order were significantly slower (16%, P < .001). Conclusions.— There are significant differences in ease of use by nonpathologists between different synoptic report formats. Such information may be useful in deciding between different format options.