ArticleJournal of multidisciplinary healthcare2019
Difficulties and possibilities in communication between referring clinicians and radiologists: perspective of clinicians.
Article in Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Interprofessional communication - a concept analysis inspired by Schwartz-Barcott and Kim´s hybrid model.BMC health services research · 2026Pooled it
- Factors influencing referrals amongst allied health and medical practitioners managing people with musculoskeletal conditions in Australian primary care.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Review
- Can radiology requisition quality reflect clinical reasoning? Insights from a RI-RADS evaluation of emergency CT referrals.Insights into imaging · 2025Article
- Feedback in radiology: Essential tool for improving user experience and providing value-based care.Insights into imaging · 2025Article
- Evaluating Factors Affecting Knowledge Sharing Among Health Care Professionals in the Medical Imaging Departments of 2 Cancer Centers: Concurrent Mixed Methods Study.JMIR human factors · 2024Article
- Substantial variability in what is considered important in the radiological report for anterior shoulder instability: a Delphi study with Dutch musculoskeletal radiologists and orthopedic surgeons.JSES international · 2024Article
- Radiology reporting in rectal cancer using magnetic resonance imaging: Comparison of reporting completeness between different reporting styles and structure.Acta radiologica open · 2024Article
- Interdepartmental miscommunication regarding radiology: Addressing chronic challenges and exploring solutions.World journal of radiology · 2024Article
- Assessing ChatGPT's Proficiency in Simplifying Radiological Reports for Healthcare Professionals and Patients.Cureus · 2023Article
- Factors That Affect Knowledge-Sharing Behaviors in Medical Imaging Departments in Cancer Centers: Systematic Review.JMIR human factors · 2023Review
- The role of teleradiology during COVID-19 outbreak: Saudi radiologists' perspectives.Saudi medical journal · 2023Article
- Radiology reporting in rectal cancer using MRI: adherence to national template for structured reporting.Acta radiologica (Stockholm, Sweden : 1987) · 2022Article
- Imaging intensive care patients: multidisciplinary conferences as a quality improvement initiative to reduce medical error.Insights into imaging · 2022Article
- Artificial Intelligence in "Code Stroke"-A Paradigm Shift: Do Radiologists Need to Change Their Practice?Radiology. Artificial intelligence · 2022Article
- The Radiology Virtual Reading Room: During and Beyond the COVID-19 Pandemic.Journal of digital imaging · 2021Review
- Musculoskeletal symptoms among radiologists in Saudi Arabia: a multi-center cross-sectional study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2019Article
- Understanding interaction between patients and nurse anesthetists. A systematic review of qualitative and quantitative studies.Saudi journal of anaesthesiaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo investigate modes and quality of interprofessional communication between clinicians and radiologists, and to identify difficulties and possibilities in this context, as experienced by referring clinicians. PATIENTS AND
methodsFocus group interviews with 22 clinicians from different specialties were carried out. The leading question was: "How do you experience communication, verbal and nonverbal, between referring clinicians and radiologists?" Content analysis was used for interpretation of data.
resultsOverall, referring clinicians expressed satisfaction with their interprofessional communication with radiologists, and digital access to image data was highly appreciated. However, increased reliance on digital communication has led to reduced face-to-face contacts between clinicians and radiologists. This seems to constitute a potential threat to bilateral feedback, joint educational opportunities, and interprofessional development. Cumbersome medical information software systems, time constraints, shortage of staff, reliance on teleradiology, and lack of uniform format of radiology reports were mentioned as problematic. Further implementation of structured reporting was considered beneficial.
conclusionDeepened face-to-face contacts between clinicians and radiologists were considered prerequisites for mutual understanding, deepened competence and mutual trust; a key factor in interprofessional communication. Clinicians and radiologists should come together in order to secure bilateral feedback and obtain deepened knowledge of the specific needs of subspecialized clinicians.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.