In most medical practices, radiology teams interpret medical images
but aren’t the ones who tell patients about the results. Some
radiology groups across the nation are looking for ways to shorten
the turnaround time for patients to hear their results, the
researchers write online November 10 in the Journal of the American
College of Radiology.
“Historically, medicine has been somewhat patriarchal. When patients
interact with health care systems, medicine says we don’t tell test
results until they’ve been curated by a doctor,” said Dr. Matthew
Davenport of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.
“A paradigm shift is happening where online patient portals are
becoming more common, and results are being released there,” he told
Reuters Health by phone. “Patients want to see their results in a
timely fashion, and we may see that embargo period begin to
disappear.”
Davenport's team surveyed 202 patients at two practices in Ann
Arbor, describing six scenarios: a chest X-ray for chest pain, a
chest X-ray for pneumonia, an MRI for back pain, a CT or MRI for a
brain tumor, and a CT or MRI for cancer treatment. For each
scenario, they asked patients how long they’d wait before calling
their provider, whether they’d feel anxious while waiting for
results, and their preferences for using an online patient portal to
get the results.
In general, patients wanted test results in one to three days and
would call their providers in one to five days if they hadn’t heard
anything. Half of the patients said they expected results within
three days after a routine screening, two days after a chest X-ray
for chest pain, and one day after tests for pneumonia, a brain tumor
or cancer treatment.
Half the patients would wait no more than five days to contact their
doctor after a screening exam, two days after tests for chest pain
or back pain and one day for tests for pneumonia or a brain tumor.
“In an ideal environment, of course, patients would want to know
results instantaneously,” Davenport said. “But even if radiologists
complete them in 24 hours, there’s a delay in reporting them to the
patients.”
Half of the patients said they had experienced emotional changes,
including minimal, mild, moderate, severe or extreme anxiety, while
waiting for radiology results.
[to top of second column] |
Generally, patients wanted to hear results from their doctors over
the phone rather than in person. But both of those options were
preferable to receiving results online. Of the 58 percent who had
actually used an online patient portal, however, 94 percent said
they had received tests results online and the vast majority liked
it.
“Personally, I’ve had family members who have been tested and then
they never hear a result,” Davenport said. “They wonder about the
results and if they’ve been forgotten, and one thing I’ve learned is
that the anxiety around waiting is real and disruptive to people’s
lives.”
The researchers were surprised that patients would prefer to contact
their doctor or radiologist when they have questions about test
results. “In my time as a radiologist, I’ve been contacted a handful
of times by patients,” he said. “The current paradigm is that we
don’t often interact with patients, so it’s interesting to see that
patients might like to talk with us more.”
The American College of Radiology has started a national initiative
called Imaging 3.0 that encourages radiologists to take a larger
role in high-quality patient care and direct interactions with
patients. At NYU Langone Health in New York City, for example,
radiologists have shifted the way results are communicated to
patients by embedding more images in their test result reports and
including the radiologist’s annotations and notes.
“With imaging test results, a picture really can be worth more than
1,000 words,” said Dr. Andrew Rosencrantz of NYU Langone Health, who
wasn’t involved with this study.
“For patients, radiology is changing for the better,” Rosencrantz
told Reuters Health by phone. “We’re more patient-focused and want
to get test results to patients quickly and in a way that’s
understandable.”
SOURCE: http://bit.ly/2AYOpsX
J Am Coll Radiol 2017.
[© 2017 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.] Copyright 2017 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. |