Digitally structured reports of head and neck ultrasound studies

Introduction:

Reports of head and neck ultrasound studies are frequently hand written as free texts. Therefore there is a high rate of differences in readability and overall report quality between different examiners especially when the educational level is taken into account. Thus the present study's aim is to compare the quality of free text (FTR) and digital structured reports (SR) of head and neck ultrasound studies.

Materials and Methods:

Both standard FTR and SR of head and neck ultrasound studies of 33 patients were acquired by independent examiners with corresponding educational level. A template for SR of head and neck ultrasound studies was created using an online based approach. FTR and SR were evaluated regarding overall completeness, required time to complete and readability by two independent raters.

Results:

SR received significantly better ratings in terms of report completeness (92.7% vs. 49.9%, p < 0.001) in all items. In addition, pathologies were described in more detail using SR (88.9% vs. 56.6%, p < 0.001). Readability was significantly higher in all SR when compared to FTR (100% vs. 40%, p < 0.001). However, the median time to complete was significantly higher in SR (154 vs. 66 seconds, p < 0.001).

Conclusion:

SR of head and neck ultrasound studies provide more detailed information with a better readability at a reasonable time-wise expense. In addition SR can be easily used for scientific purposes.

Publication History

Publication Date:
18 April 2018 (online)