Advertisement

Patients' Use and Evaluation of an Online System to Annotate Radiology Reports with Lay Language Definitions

  • Tessa S. Cook
    Affiliations
    Department of Radiology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, 3400 Spruce St., Philadelphia, PA 19104

    Institute for Biomedical Informatics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
    Search for articles by this author
  • Seong Cheol Oh
    Affiliations
    Department of Radiology, Geisinger Wyoming Valley Medical Center, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania
    Search for articles by this author
  • Charles E. Kahn Jr
    Correspondence
    Address correspondence to: C.E.K.
    Affiliations
    Department of Radiology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, 3400 Spruce St., Philadelphia, PA 19104

    Institute for Biomedical Informatics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

    Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
    Search for articles by this author
Published:April 19, 2017DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2017.03.005

      Rationale and Objectives

      The increasing availability of personal health portals has made it easier for patients to obtain their imaging results online. However, the radiology report typically is designed to communicate findings and recommendations to the referring clinician, and may contain many terms unfamiliar to lay readers. We sought to evaluate a web-based interface that presented reports of knee MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) examinations with annotations that included patient-oriented definitions, anatomic illustrations, and hyperlinks to additional information.

      Materials and Methods

      During a 7-month observational trial, a statement added to all knee MRI reports invited patients to view their annotated report online. We tracked the number of patients who opened their reports, the terms they hovered over to view definitions, and the time hovering over each term. Patients who accessed their annotated reports were invited to complete a survey.

      Results

      Of 1138 knee MRI examinations during the trial period, 185 patients (16.3%) opened their report in the viewing portal. Of those, 141 (76%) hovered over at least one term to view its definition, and 121 patients (65%) viewed a mean of 27.5 terms per examination and spent an average of 3.5 minutes viewing those terms. Of the 22 patients who completed the survey, 77% agreed that the definitions helped them understand the report and 91% stated that the illustrations were helpful.

      Conclusions

      A system that provided definitions and illustrations of the medical and technical terms in radiology reports has potential to improve patients' understanding of their reports and their diagnoses.

      Key Words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Academic Radiology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Ryan B.L.
        • Brown J.B.
        • Terry A.
        • et al.
        Implementing and using a patient portal: a qualitative exploration of patient and provider perspectives on engaging patients.
        J Innov Health Inform. 2016; 23: 848
        • Irizarry T.
        • DeVito Dabbs A.
        • Curran C.R.
        Patient portals and patient engagement: a state of the science review.
        J Med Internet Res. 2015; 17: e148
        • Peacock S.
        • Reddy A.
        • Leveille S.G.
        • et al.
        Patient portals and personal health information online: perception, access, and use by US adults.
        J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2016; (pii: ocw095)https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocw095
        • Arnold C.W.
        • McNamara M.
        • El-Saden S.
        • et al.
        Imaging informatics for consumer health: towards a radiology patient portal.
        J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2013; 20: 1028-1036
        • Cabarrus M.
        • Naeger D.M.
        • Rybkin A.
        • et al.
        Patients prefer results from the ordering provider and access to their radiology reports.
        J Am Coll Radiol. 2014; 12: 556-562
        • Miles R.C.
        • Hippe D.S.
        • Elmore J.G.
        • et al.
        Patient access to online radiology reports: frequency and sociodemographic characteristics associated with use.
        Acad Radiol. 2016; 23: 1162-1169
        • Wallis A.
        • McCoubrie P.
        The radiology report–are we getting the message across?.
        Clin Radiol. 2011; 66: 1015-1022
        • Bruno M.A.
        • Petscavage-Thomas J.M.
        • Mohr M.J.
        • et al.
        The “open letter”: radiologists' reports in the era of patient web portals.
        J Am Coll Radiol. 2014; 11: 863-867
        • Rosenkrantz A.B.
        • Flagg E.R.
        Survey-based assessment of patients' understanding of their own imaging examinations.
        J Am Coll Radiol. 2015; 12: 549-555
        • Smith J.N.
        • Gunderman R.B.
        Should we inform patients of radiology results?.
        Radiology. 2010; 255: 317-321
        • Johnson A.J.
        • Frankel R.M.
        • Williams L.S.
        • et al.
        Patient access to radiology reports: what do physicians think?.
        J Am Coll Radiol. 2010; 7: 281-289
        • Henshaw D.
        • Okawa G.
        • Ching K.
        • et al.
        Access to radiology reports via an online patient portal: experiences of referring physicians and patients.
        J Am Coll Radiol. 2015; 12 (e1): 582-586
        • Mervak B.M.
        • Davenport M.S.
        • Flynt K.A.
        • et al.
        What the patient wants: an analysis of radiology-related inquiries from a web-based patient portal.
        J Am Coll Radiol. 2016; 13: 1311-1318
        • Oh S.C.
        • Cook T.S.
        • Kahn Jr, C.E.
        PORTER: a prototype system for patient-oriented radiology reporting.
        J Digit Imaging. 2016; 29: 450-454
        • Ellenbogen P.H.
        Imaging 3.0: what is it?.
        J Am Coll Radiol. 2013; 10: 229
        • Pahade J.
        • Couto C.
        • Davis R.B.
        • et al.
        Reviewing imaging examination results with a radiologist immediately after study completion: patient preferences and assessment of feasibility in an academic department.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012; 199: 844-851
        • Mangano M.D.
        • Rahman A.
        • Choy G.
        • et al.
        Radiologists' role in the communication of imaging examination results to patients: perceptions and preferences of patients.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014; 203: 1034-1039
        • Miller P.
        • Gunderman R.
        • Lightburn J.
        • et al.
        Enhancing patients' experiences in radiology: through patient-radiologist interaction.
        Acad Radiol. 2013; 20: 778-781
        • Baorto D.M.
        • Cimino J.J.
        An “infobutton” for enabling patients to interpret on-line Pap smear reports.
        Proc AMIA Symp. 2000; : 47-50
        • Cook D.A.
        • Teixeira M.T.
        • Heale B.S.
        • et al.
        Context-sensitive decision support (infobuttons) in electronic health records: a systematic review.
        J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2017; 24: 460-468
        • Tieu L.
        • Schillinger D.
        • Sarkar U.
        • et al.
        Online patient websites for electronic health record access among vulnerable populations: portals to nowhere?.
        J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2016; (pii: ocw098)https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocw098
        • Graetz I.
        • Gordon N.
        • Fung V.
        • et al.
        The digital divide and patient portals: internet access explained differences in patient portal use for secure messaging by age, race, and income.
        Med Care. 2016; 54: 772-779
        • Hansberry D.R.
        • Agarwal N.
        • Baker S.R.
        Health literacy and online educational resources: an opportunity to educate patients.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015; 204: 111-116
        • Gunn A.J.
        • Mangano M.D.
        • Choy G.
        • et al.
        Rethinking the role of the radiologist: enhancing visibility through both traditional and nontraditional reporting practices.
        Radiographics. 2015; 35: 416-423
        • Zeng-Treitler Q.
        • Goryachev S.
        • Kim H.
        • et al.
        Making texts in electronic health records comprehensible to consumers: a prototype translator.
        AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2007; : 846-850