Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40569504›Full record

ArticleInsights into imaging2025

Feedback in radiology: Essential tool for improving user experience and providing value-based care.

Andrea Rockall, Jacob J Visser, Cristina Garcia-Villar, Naama Lev-Cohain, Patrick Omoumi, Marie-Pierre Revel, Ruth Mary Strudwick, European Society of Radiology (ESR), ESR and ESR Value-based Radiology Subcommittee

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Insights into imaging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Andrea RockallDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Jacob J VisserDepartment of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Cristina Garcia-VillarHospital Universitario Puerta del Mar, Cádiz, Spain.
Naama Lev-CohainDepartment of Radiology, The Faculty of Medicine, Hadassah Medical Center, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel.
Patrick OmoumiDepartment of radiology, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Marie-Pierre RevelUniversité Paris Cité, Paris, France.
Ruth Mary StrudwickUniversity of Suffolk, Neptune Quay, Suffolk, UK.
European Society of Radiology (ESR)
ESR and ESR Value-based Radiology Subcommittee

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Measuring the value that radiology brings to patient care can be challenging. A positive patient experience is consistently associated with patient safety, clinical effectiveness, and outcome measures and is therefore a tool for measuring value-based care. Monitoring the experience of users of radiology services is an indispensable component of quality improvement programmes for radiology departments. The integration of comprehensive feedback mechanisms brings numerous benefits, including enhanced care, strengthened trust, and greater engagement with our stakeholders and service users. Feedback should be collected from a variety of stakeholders through a 360-degree approach, combining both systematically performed structured methods, such as formal surveys, and unstructured methods, such as informal and opportunistic information gathering during multidisciplinary rounds. To maximise the impact of feedback, it should be frequent and diverse, ensuring that all perspectives are considered. Leaders in radiology must prioritise embedding a culture of feedback within their institutions, recognising its crucial role in continuous improvement. It is essential to ensure that our departments consistently provide value to our most important stakeholders-the patients-but also to our referrers and trainees. In this article, we consider methods for collecting feedback and provide some of the key findings from the literature. By fostering an environment that values and acts upon feedback, we can achieve significant advancements in patient care and overall service quality in radiology. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Regular feedback from patients, peers, radiographers, referrers, trainees and other users of imaging services is an essential tool for continuous quality improvement, patient safety and value-based care, enhancing trust and greater engagement with our stakeholders and service users. KEY POINTS: Feedback from patients and referrers, radiographers and radiology trainees, helps radiology departments to identify weaknesses and strengths, and should be fully incorporated into daily practice. Many methods are available for collecting user and stakeholder experience, and these should be implemented as a priority. Acting on stakeholder feedback can improve patient safety and patient experience ratings, leading to a culture of continuous improvement in value-based care.

Indexed as

FeedbackHospital managementPatientsReferrersValue-based health care

Identifiers

PMID40569504
PMCPMC12202251

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.