Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Direct communication between radiologists and patients following imaging examinations. Should radiologists rethink their patient care?

  • Magnetic Resonance
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

To investigate patients’ perception of the radiology service when the radiologist communicates the findings to patients.

Methods

After routine MRI, patients in group 1 (n = 101) were given the opportunity to discuss the findings with the radiologist. Patients in group 2 (n = 101) left the radiology department without any personal communication. Subsequently, by means of a questionnaire designed by an expert psychologist, both groups were asked regarding their anxiety, emotional attachment to the institute and subjective assessment of competence.

Results

Overall 76 % of all patients were concerned about their imaging findings without significant difference between both groups (p = 0.179). Significantly more patients in group 1 (81%) versus group 2 (14%; p < 0.001) perceived the opportunity to discuss their imaging findings with a radiologist to be a characteristic of a good radiology consultation. A larger number of patients in group 1 experienced significantly higher bonding and only wanted in the future to be examined in the department with communication (p = 0.001) (93%/75%). Significantly more patients in group 1 regarded the radiology department they attended as being more competent (mean score 4.72/4.09, p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Direct communication of imaging findings from radiologists to patients after an MRI examination leads to increased confidence in the radiology service and higher bonding between the patient and radiologist. Radiologists who refrain from direct communication have a lower bonding to patients and are assessed to have lower competence from the patient’s point of view.

Key Points

• Communication between radiologists and patients leads to an increased bonding affinity.

• Direct communication leads to increased patient confidence in the radiology service.

• Patients perceived discussion with a radiologist of high value.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Lo Re G, De Luca R, Muscarneri F et al (2016) Relationship between anxiety level and radiological investigation. Comparison among different diagnostic imaging exams in a prospective single-center study. Radiol Med 121:763–768

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Mettler FA, Bhargavan M, Faulkner K et al (2009) Radiologic and nuclear medicine studies in the United States and worldwide: frequency, radiation dose, and comparison with other radiation sources—1950–2007. Radiology 253:520–531

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Dendl LM, Teufel A, Schleder S et al (2017) Analysis of radiological case presentations and their impact on therapy and treatment concepts in internal medicine. Rofo 189:239–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Miller LS, Shelby RA, Balmadrid MH (2016) Patient anxiety before and immediately after imaging-guided breast biopsy procedures: impact of radiologist-patient communication. J Am Coll Radiol 13:e62–e71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Berlin L (2009) Communicating results of all outpatient radiologic examinations directly to patients: the time has come. AJR Am J Roentgenol 192:571–573

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Glazer GM, Ruiz-Wibbelsmann JA (2011) The invisible radiologist. Radiology 258:18–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Margulis AR, Sostman HD (2004) Radiologist-patient contact during the performance of cross-sectional examinations. J Am Coll Radiol 1:162–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Boland GW, Glenn L, Goldberg-Stein S et al (2017) Report of the ACR's economics committee on value-based payment models. J Am Coll Radiol 14:6–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Spielberger CD et al (1980) State-trait anxiety inventory—Forma Y. Milano, Giunti O.S, pp 81–95

  10. Rogers CR, Dorfman E, Nosbüsch E (1972) Client-centered therapy. Kindler Verlag, München

    Google Scholar 

  11. Schulz von Thun F (2006) Miteinander Reden. Rowohlt-Taschenbuch-Verlag, München

    Google Scholar 

  12. Sacristán J (2013) Patient-centered medicine and patient-oriented research: improving health outcomes for individual patients. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 13:6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kahn CE, Langlotz CP, Burnside ES et al (2009) Toward best practices in radiology reporting. Radiology 252:852–856

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Levitsky DB, Frank MS, Richardson ML, Shneidman RJ (1993) How should radiologists reply when patients ask about their diagnoses? A survey of radiologists' and clinicians' preferences. AJR Am J Roentgenol 161:433–436

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Pahade J, Couto C, Davis RB, Patel P, Siewert B, Rosen MP (2012) 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 199:844–851

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Smith JN, Gunderman RB (2010) Should we inform patients of radiology results? Radiology 255:317–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. O'Mahony N, McCarthy E, McDermott R, O'Keeffe S (2012) Who's the doctor? Patients' perceptions of the role of the breast radiologist: a lesson for all radiologists. Br J Radiol 85:e1184–e1189

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Koney N, Roudenko A, Ro M, Bahl S, Kagen A (2016) Patients want to meet with imaging experts. J Am Coll Radiol 13:465–470

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Cabarrus M, Naeger DM, Rybkin A, Qayyum A (2015) Patients prefer results from the ordering provider and access to their radiology reports. J Am Coll Radiol 12:556–562

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. European Society of Radiology (ESR) (2017) ESR concept paper on value-based radiology. Insights Imaging 8:447–454

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Erdoğan N, İmamoğlu H, Görkem SB, Doğan S, Şenol S, Öztürk A (2017) Preferences of referring physicians regarding the role of radiologists as direct communicators of test results. Diagn Interv Radiol 23:81–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Mangano MD, Rahman A, Choy G, Sahani DV, Boland GW, Gunn AJ (2014) Radiologists' role in the communication of imaging examination results to patients: perceptions and preferences of patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 203:1034–1039

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Miller P, Lightburn J, Gunderman R, Miller D (2012) Radiologists' role: the patient's perspective. Radiological Society of North America 2012 Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting, 25–30 November 30, 2012

  24. Norbash A, Bluth E, Lee CI (2014) Radiologist manpower considerations and Imaging 3.0: effort planning for value-based imaging. J Am Coll Radiol 11:953–958

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Flory N, Lang EV (2011) Distress in the radiology waiting room. Radiology 260:166–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. European Society of Radiology (Statement) (2010) The future role of radiology in healthcare. Insights Imaging 1:2–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Knechtges PM, Carlos RC (2007) The evolving role of radiologists within the health care system. J Am Coll Radiol 4:626–635

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Deep thanks are due to Friedemann Schulz von Thun from Hamburg in Germany, who is an important scientist and teacher of psychology and communication. The education in his institute opened our minds in many aspects.

We would like to thank our medical technologists, who try to improve good communication practice doing the best possible for our patients.

We thank Nicole Graf, who has supported us as a professional statistician in the evaluations (www.graf@biostatistics.ch).

Funding

The authors state that this work has not received any funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Paracelsus Medical University Salzburg, Müllner Hauptstraße 48, A-5020, Salzburg, Austria

    Andreas Gutzeit, Klaus Hergan & Matthias Meissnitzer

  2. Institute of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Hirslanden Klinik St. Anna, St. Anna-Strasse 32, 6006, Lucerne, Switzerland

    Andreas Gutzeit, Johannes M. Froehlich & Sebastian Kos

  3. Department of Chemistry and Applied Biosciences, Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, ETH Zurich, Vladimir-Prelog-Weg 1-5 / 10, 8093, Zurich, Switzerland

    Andreas Gutzeit & Johannes M. Froehlich

  4. elbdialog GbR; Schulz von Thun Institute, Institute for Communication, Hamburg, Germany

    Regine Heiland

  5. Institute of Clinical Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Theodor-Kutzer-Ufer 1-3, D-68167, Mannheim, Germany

    Sonja Sudarski

  6. DZHK (German Centre for Cardiovascular Research) partner site Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany

    Sonja Sudarski

  7. Department of Internal Medicine, Hirslanden Klinik St. Anna, St. Anna-Strasse 31, 6006, Lucerne, Switzerland

    Peter Bertke

  8. Department of Radiology, University Washington, 1959 NE Pacific St., Seattle, WA, 98190, USA

    Orpheus Kolokythas

  9. Department of Radiology, Royal Marsden Hospital, Sutton, Surrey, UK

    Dow M. Koh

Authors
  1. Andreas Gutzeit
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Regine Heiland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sonja Sudarski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Johannes M. Froehlich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Klaus Hergan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Matthias Meissnitzer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Sebastian Kos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Peter Bertke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Orpheus Kolokythas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Dow M. Koh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andreas Gutzeit.

Ethics declarations

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Andreas Gutzeit.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Statistics and biometry

Nicole Graf kindly provided statistical advice for this manuscript.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects (patients) in this study.

Ethical approval

Institutional review board approval was obtained.

Methodology

• prospective

• randomised controlled trial

• performed at one institution

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gutzeit, A., Heiland, R., Sudarski, S. et al. Direct communication between radiologists and patients following imaging examinations. Should radiologists rethink their patient care?. Eur Radiol 29, 224–231 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5503-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5503-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation