J Korean Soc Radiol.  2018 Nov;79(5):247-253. 10.3348/jksr.2018.79.5.247.

Status of Interchange of Medical Imaging in Korea: A Questionnaire Survey of Physicians

• Choi MH
• Jung SE
• Kim S
• Shin NY
• Yong HS
• Woo H
• Jeong WK
• Jin KN
• Choi S

• KMID: 2422900
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3348/jksr.2018.79.5.247

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to summarize the results of a survey for physicians with specialties other than radiology about imaging studies of patients referred from other institutions. The survey was promoted through individual contacts or social network service and physicians who voluntarily responded to the survey were the subjects of the study. The questionnaire consisted of 11 questions about basic information and referrals about medical imaging. A total of 160 physicians from 30 specialties participated in the survey and 95.6% of the respondents worked in tertiary care center or general hospital. Patients were frequently referred with outside medical images. The most frequently referred imaging modalities were computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. However, radiological reports from outside institutions were rarely referred. Most physicians thought that reinterpretation for outside imaging is necessary to acquire a secondary opinion. In conclusion, considering that outside radiological reports are frequently missing and there are high demands on reinterpretation for outside imaging, guidelines for referral of radiological reports with medical imaging, basic elements of radiological reports, and reinterpretation need to be developed.

MeSH Terms

Diagnostic Imaging*
Hospitals, General
Humans
Korea*
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Radiology Information Systems
Referral and Consultation
Surveys and Questionnaires
Tertiary Care Centers

Reference

1.Oh YH. [Problem with and policy agenda for over supply of major medical equipments in Korea]. Health and Welfare Policy Forum. 2013. 202:62–73.

2.Lee JS. [Current status of quality management of medical imaging in Korea]. J Korean Med Assoc. 2015. 58:1119–1124.

3.Gunn AJ., Tuttle MC., Flores EJ., Mangano MD., Bennett SE., Sahani DV, et al. Differing interpretations of report terminology between primary care physicians and radiologists. J Am Coll Radiol. 2016. 13:1525–1529. .e1.

4.Onwubiko C., Mooney DP. The value of official reinterpretation of trauma computed tomography scans from referring hospitals. J Pediatr Surg. 2016. 51:486–489.

5.Eakins C., Ellis WD., Pruthi S., Johnson DP., Hernanz-Schulman M., Yu C, et al. Second opinion interpretations by specialty radiologists at a pediatric hospital: rate of disagreement and clinical implications. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012. 199:916–920.

6.Lindgren EA., Patel MD., Wu Q., Melikian J., Hara AK. The clinical impact of subspecialized radiologist reinterpretation of abdominal imaging studies, with analysis of the types and relative frequency of interpretation discrepancies. Abdom Imaging. 2014. 39:1119–1126.

7.Carter BW., Erasmus JJ., Truong MT., Shepard JO., Hofstetter W., Clarke R, et al. Quality and value of subspecialty reinterpretation of thoracic CT scans of patients referred to a tertiary cancer center. J Am Coll Radiol. 2017. 14:1109–1118.

8.Spivey TL., Carlson KA., Janssen I., Witt TR., Jokich P., Madri-grano A. Breast imaging second opinions impact surgical management. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015. 22:2359–2364.

9.Coffey K., D'Alessio D., Keating DM., Morris EA. Second-opinion review of breast imaging at a cancer center: is it worthwhile? AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017. 208:1386–1391.

10.Lu MT., Tellis WM., Fidelman N., Qayyum A., Avrin DE. Reducing the rate of repeat imaging: import of outside images to PACS. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012. 198:628–634.

11.Sung JC., Sodickson A., Ledbetter S. Outside CT imaging among emergency department transfer patients. J Am Coll Radiol. 2009. 6:626–632.

12.Hwang J., Paik SH., Park JS., Lee H. [Clinical significance of short-term repeat computed tomography examination on the same anatomic region]. J Korean Soc Radiol. 2017. 77:157–165.