Trauma and Emergency Room Imaging / L’imagerie des urgences et des traumatismes Evaluation of Radiology Reports by the Emergency Department Clinical Providers: A Message to Radiologists Waleed Abdellatif, MBBCh, MSc, MSHPE, CPHQ 1 , Jeffrey Ding 2 , Abdelmohsen Radwan Hussien, MD 3 , Ali Hussain, MBcHB 4 , Shahin Shirzad, MD 5 , Max F. Ryan, MBBCh, FFR RCSI, FRCR 6 , Siobhan B. O’Neill, MD, PhD 1 , Bruce B. Forster, MSc, MD, FRCPC 1 , and Savvas Nicolaou, MD, FRCPC 1 Abstract Objectives: This study is an evaluation of the emergency department (ED) satisfaction with the current radiologic reporting system used at a major Northeastern academic medical center. The radiology reports are the main form of communication and usually the final product of any radiological investigation delivered to clinicians. The aim of this study was to improve current radiology reporting practices and to better tailor reports to match the needs and expectations of ED clinicians. Methods: A 9-question online survey was sent to ED residents, fellows, faculty, and nurse practitioners/advanced practice providers at a major Northeastern academic medical center in the United States. For the open-ended section, coding and emergent theme categorization was conducted for quantification of responses. The survey was designed to evaluate the attitudes toward the structure, style, form, and wording used in reports. Results: The response rate was 48.6% (68/140). The ED respondents were generally satisfied with radiology reports, their language, vocabulary, and clarity. They preferred the impression section to be before the findings in simple examinations and to stratify the reports according to emergency status for complex examinations. They did not like extended dif- ferential, hedge terms, and delayed reporting. Additionally, ED respondents recommended focused, fast reporting with considerable changes toward a more standardized report. Conclusions: This evaluation delivered a list of actionable recommendations. The top recommendation is to standardize reporting structure, style, and lexicon, in addition to being focused, timely, and brief. R´ esum ´ e Objectifs : Cette ´ etude est une ´ evaluation du niveau de satisfaction du service des urgences, concernant le syste `me de compte- rendu des examens radiologiques en vigueur dans l’un des principaux centres m´ edicaux universitaires du Nord-Est. Les rapports radiologiques sont la voie principale de communication et, g´ en´ eralement, le produit final de toute ´ etude radiologique envoy´ e aux cliniciens. Le but de cette ´ etude ´ etait d’am´ eliorer les pratiques en vigueur de compte-rendu d’examen radiologique et de mieux adapter les rapports afin qu’ils coı ¨ncident aux besoins et aux attentes des cliniciens du service des urgences. M´ ethodes : Un sondage en ligne compos´ e de 9 questions a ´ et´ e envoy´ e aux r´ esidents, stagiaires postdoctoraux, superviseurs de stage et praticiens en soins infirmiers/soins avanc´ es du service des urgences d’un centre m´ edical universitaire majeur du Nord-Est des E ´ tats-Unis. Concernant le volet a ` r´ eponse libre du sondage, un codage et un classement des the `mes ´ emergents par cat´ egorie ont ´ et´ e effectu´ es pour quantifier les r´ eponses. Le sondage a ´ et´ e conc ¸u de manie `re a `´ evaluer les comportements habituels envers la structure, le style, la forme et les formulations utilis´ es dans les rapports. R´ esultats : Le taux de r´ eponse ´ etait de 48,6 % (68/140). D’une manie `re g´ en´ erale, les personnes du service des urgences interrog´ ees ´ etaient satisfaites des rapports d’examen radiologique, 1 Department of Radiology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada 2 Faculty of Science, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada 3 Department of Radiology, SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY, USA 4 Department of Imaging Sciences, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, USA 5 Department of Emergency Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada 6 University Hospital Radiology Group, Cork University Hospital, Cork, Munster, Ireland Corresponding Author: Waleed Abdellatif, MBBCh, MSc, MSHPE, CPHQ, Department of Radiology, University of British Columbia, 899 West 12th Avenue, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V5Z 1M9. Email: wtahawy@hotmail.com Canadian Association of Radiologists’ Journal 1-8 ª The Author(s) 2020 Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions DOI: 10.1177/0846537120902067 journals.sagepub.com/home/caj