Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Typ-2-Diabetes und Adipositas Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM Panorama
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende Patientenratgeber
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
European Radiology
Erschienen in:

28.07.2017 | Head and Neck

Structured reports of videofluoroscopic swallowing studies have the potential to improve overall report quality compared to free text reports

verfasst von: Franziska Schoeppe, Wieland H. Sommer, Mareike Haack, Miriam Havel, Marika Rheinwald, Juliane Wechtenbruch, Martin R. Fischer, Felix G. Meinel, Bastian O. Sabel, Nora N. Sommer

Erschienen in: European Radiology | Ausgabe 1/2018

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

To compare free text (FTR) and structured reports (SR) of videofluoroscopic swallowing studies (VFSS) and evaluate satisfaction of referring otolaryngologists and speech therapists.

Materials and methods

Both standard FTR and SR of 26 patients with VFSS were acquired. A dedicated template focusing on oropharyngeal phases was created for SR using online software with clickable decision-trees and concomitant generation of semantically structured reports. All reports were evaluated regarding overall quality and content, information extraction and clinical decision support (10-point Likert scale (0 = I completely disagree, 10 = I completely agree)).

Results

Two otorhinolaryngologists and two speech therapists evaluated FTR and SR. SR received better ratings than FTR in all items. SR were perceived to contain more details on the swallowing phases (median rating: 10 vs. 5; P < 0.001), penetration and aspiration (10 vs. 5; P < 0.001) and facilitated information extraction compared to FTR (10 vs. 4; P < 0.001). Overall quality was rated significantly higher in SR than FTR (P < 0.001).

Conclusion

SR of VFSS provide more detailed information and facilitate information extraction. SR better assist in clinical decision-making, might enhance the quality of the report and, thus, are recommended for the evaluation of VFSS.

Key Points

• Structured reports on videofluoroscopic exams of deglutition lead to improved report quality.
• Information extraction is facilitated when using structured reports based on decision trees.
• Template-based reports add more value to clinical decision-making than free text reports.
• Structured reports receive better ratings by speech therapists and otolaryngologists.
• Structured reports on videofluoroscopic exams may improve the comparability between exams.
Literatur
1.
Radiology ESo (2011) Good practice for radiological reporting. Guidelines from the European Society of Radiology (ESR). Insights Imaging 2:93–96CrossRef
2.
Morgan TA, Helibrun ME, Kahn CE (2014) Reporting initiative of the Radiological Society of North America: progress and new directions. Radiology 273:642–645CrossRefPubMed
3.
Langlotz CP (2006) RadLex: a new method for indexing online educational materials. Radiographics 26:1595–1597CrossRefPubMed
4.
Dunnick NR, Langlotz CP (2008) The radiology report of the future: a summary of the 2007 Intersociety Conference. J Am Coll Radiol 5:626–629CrossRefPubMed
5.
Sahni VA, Silveira PC, Sainani NI, Khorasani R (2015) Impact of a structured report template on the quality of MRI reports for rectal cancer staging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 205:584–588CrossRefPubMed
6.
Schwartz LH, Panicek DM, Berk AR, Li Y, Hricak H (2011) Improving communication of diagnostic radiology findings through structured reporting. Radiology 260:174–181CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
Marcovici PA, Taylor GA (2014) Journal Club: Structured radiology reports are more complete and more effective than unstructured reports. AJR Am J Roentgenol 203:1265–1271CrossRefPubMed
8.
Brook OR, Brook A, Vollmer CM, Kent TS, Sanchez N, Pedrosa I (2015) Structured reporting of multiphasic CT for pancreatic cancer: potential effect on staging and surgical planning. Radiology 274:464–472CrossRefPubMed
9.
Grant EG, Tessler FN, Hoang JK et al (2015) Thyroid ultrasound reporting lexicon: white paper of the ACR Thyroid Imaging, Reporting and Data System (TIRADS) Committee. J Am Coll Radiol 12:1272–1279CrossRefPubMed
10.
Margolies LR, Pandey G, Horowitz ER, Mendelson DS (2016) Breast Imaging in the era of big data: structured reporting and data mining. AJR Am J Roentgenol 206:259–264CrossRefPubMed
11.
Durack JC (2014) The value proposition of structured reporting in interventional radiology. AJR Am J Roentgenol 203:734–738CrossRefPubMed
12.
Weiss DL, Langlotz CP (2008) Structured reporting: patient care enhancement or productivity nightmare? Radiology 249:739–747CrossRefPubMed
13.
Bosmans JM, Peremans L, Menni M, De Schepper AM, Duyck PO, Parizel PM (2012) Structured reporting: if, why, when, how-and at what expense? Results of a focus group meeting of radiology professionals from eight countries. Insights Imaging 3:295–302CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
14.
15.
Gates J, Hartnell GG, Gramigna GD (2006) Videofluoroscopy and swallowing studies for neurologic disease: a primer. Radiographics 26:e22CrossRefPubMed
16.
Ott DJ, Pikna LA (1993) Clinical and videofluoroscopic evaluation of swallowing disorders. AJR Am J Roentgenol 161:507–513CrossRefPubMed
17.
18.
Gramigna GD (2006) How to perform video-fluoroscopic swallowing studies. GI Motility online
19.
Aslam M, Vaezi MF (2013) Dysphagia in the elderly. Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y) 9:784–795
20.
21.
Sue Eisenstadt E (2010) Dysphagia and aspiration pneumonia in older adults. J Am Acad Nurse Pract 22:17–22CrossRefPubMed
22.
23.
Martin-Harris B, Brodsky MB, Michel Y et al (2008) MBS measurement tool for swallow impairment—MBSImp: establishing a standard. Dysphagia 23:392–405CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
24.
Rosenbek JC, Robbins JA, Roecker EB, Coyle JL, Wood JL (1996) A penetration-aspiration scale. Dysphagia 11:93–98CrossRefPubMed
25.
Hawkins CM, Hall S, Zhang B, Towbin AJ (2014) Creation and implementation of department-wide structured reports: an analysis of the impact on error rate in radiology reports. J Digit Imaging 27:581–587CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
26.
Tarulli E, Thipphavong S, Jhaveri K (2015) A structured approach to reporting rectal cancer with magnetic resonance imaging. Abdom Imaging 40:3002–3011CrossRefPubMed
27.
Norenberg D, Sommer WH, Thasler W (2016) Structured reporting of rectal magnetic resonance imaging in suspected primary rectal cancer: potential benefits for surgical planning and interdisciplinary communication. Invest Radiol. doi:10.​1097/​RLI.​0000000000000336​
28.
Kreuzer SH, Schima W, Schober E et al (2000) Complications after laryngeal surgery: videofluoroscopic evaluation of 120 patients. Clin Radiol 55:775–781CrossRefPubMed
29.
30.
Carucci LR, Turner MA (2015) Dysphagia revisited: common and unusual causes. Radiographics 35:105–122CrossRefPubMed
31.
Kennedy GD (1992) The role of the speech and language therapist in the assessment and management of dysphagia in neurologically impaired patients. Postgrad Med J 68:545–548CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
32.
Lancaster J (2015) Dysphagia: its nature, assessment and management. Br J Community Nurs Suppl Nutrition:S28–32
33.
Davies S (2002) An interdisciplinary approach to the management of dysphagia. Prof Nurse 18:22–25CrossRefPubMed
34.
Logemann JA (1988) The role of the speech language pathologist in the management of dysphagia. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 21:783–788PubMed
35.
Scharitzer M, Pokieser P (2016) Swallowing Disorders. Laryngorhinootologie 95:205–222, quiz 223CrossRefPubMed
36.
Lin E, Powell DK, Kagetsu NJ (2014) Efficacy of a checklist-style structured radiology reporting template in reducing resident misses on cervical spine computed tomography examinations. J Digit Imaging 27:588–593CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
37.
Johnson AJ (2012) All structured reporting systems are not created equal. Radiology 262:726, author reply 726–727CrossRefPubMed
Metadaten
Titel
Structured reports of videofluoroscopic swallowing studies have the potential to improve overall report quality compared to free text reports
verfasst von
Franziska Schoeppe
Wieland H. Sommer
Mareike Haack
Miriam Havel
Marika Rheinwald
Juliane Wechtenbruch
Martin R. Fischer
Felix G. Meinel
Bastian O. Sabel
Nora N. Sommer
Publikationsdatum
28.07.2017
Verlag
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in
European Radiology / Ausgabe 1/2018
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-4971-0

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2018

Comparison of digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis in the detection of architectural distortion

  • Breast

Improving CT detection sensitivity for nodal metastases in oesophageal cancer with combination of smaller size and lymph node axial ratio

  • Gastrointestinal

Left ventricular regional myocardial motion and twist function in repaired tetralogy of Fallot evaluated by magnetic resonance tissue phase mapping

  • Magnetic Resonance

CT fluoroscopy-guided renal tumour cutting needle biopsy: retrospective evaluation of diagnostic yield, safety, and risk factors for diagnostic failure

  • Interventional

Multi-parametric MRI in cervical cancer: early prediction of response to concurrent chemoradiotherapy in combination with clinical prognostic factors

  • Oncology

Development of a reliable simulation-based test for diagnostic abdominal ultrasound with a pass/fail standard usable for mastery learning

  • Ultrasound

Neu im Fachgebiet Radiologie

KI-gestütztes Mammografiescreening überzeugt im Praxistest

Mit dem Einsatz künstlicher Intelligenz lässt sich die Detektionsrate im Mammografiescreening offenbar deutlich steigern. Mehr unnötige Zusatzuntersuchungen sind laut der Studie aus Deutschland nicht zu befürchten.

Stumme Schlaganfälle − ein häufiger Nebenbefund im Kopf-CT?

In 4% der in der Notfallambulanz initiierten zerebralen Bildgebung sind „alte“ Schlaganfälle zu erkennen. Gar nicht so selten handelt es sich laut einer aktuellen Studie dabei um unbemerkte Insulte. Bietet sich hier womöglich die Chance auf ein effektives opportunistisches Screening?

Die elektronische Patientenakte kommt: Das sollten Sie jetzt wissen

Am 15. Januar geht die „ePA für alle“ zunächst in den Modellregionen an den Start. Doch schon bald soll sie in allen Praxen zum Einsatz kommen. Was ist jetzt zu tun? Was müssen Sie wissen? Wir geben in einem FAQ Antworten auf 21 Fragen.

Stören weiße Wände und viel Licht die Bildqualitätskontrolle?

Wenn es darum geht, die technische Qualität eines Mammogramms zu beurteilen, könnten graue Wandfarbe und reduzierte Beleuchtung im Bildgebungsraum von Vorteil sein. Darauf deuten zumindest Ergebnisse einer kleinen Studie hin. 

Update Radiologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen
Bildnachweise