Evaluating the Referring Physician’s Clinical History and Indication as a Means for Communicating Chronic Conditions That Are Pertinent at the Point of Radiologic Interpretation

The clinical history and indication (CHI) provided with a radiological examination are critical components of a quality interpretation by the radiologist. A patient’s chronic conditions offer the context in which acute symptoms and findings can be interpreted more accurately. Seven pertinent (potentially diagnosis altering) chronic conditions, which are fairly prevalent at our institution, were selected. We analyze if and how in 140 CHIs there was mention of a patient’s previously reported chronic condition and if and how the condition was subsequently described in the radiology report using a four-item scheme (Mention/Specialization, Generalization, Common comorbidity, No mention). In 40.7 % of CHIs, the condition was rated Mention/Specialization. Therefore, we reject our first hypothesis that the CHI is a reliable source for obtaining pertinent chronic conditions (≥90.0 %). Non-oncological conditions were significantly more likely rated No mention in the CHI than oncological conditions (58.7 versus 8.3 %, P < 0.0001). Stat cases were significantly more frequently No mention than non-stat cases (60.0 versus 31.3 %, P = 0.0134). We accept our second hypothesis that the condition’s rating in the CHI is significantly correlated with its rating of the final radiology report (χ ² test, P < 0.00001). Our study demonstrates an alarming lack of communication of pertinent medical information to the radiologist, which may negatively impact interpretation quality. Presenting automatically aggregated patient information to the radiologist may be a potential avenue for improving interpretation and adding value of the radiology department to the care chain.