Getting Beyond Plain Text: Long-Term Adoption Rates and Survey of Radiologist Experience with Interactive Multimedia Reporting Technology

Abstract Radiology reports are ubiquitously formatted as plain text even though interactive multimedia reporting technology (IMR) is capable of enriching reports. To evaluate long-term adoption rates and radiologists’ clinical experiences with IMR, we reviewed the last 1 year of diagnostic reports ( n = 382,508), 5 years after IMR implementation, for the presence of hyperlinks. An anonymous survey about IMR was built in Qualtrics and distributed to radiologists ( n = 128). Results include the following: (1) Last 12-month % of reports containing hyperlinks to imaging findings varied by modality and subspecialty. The highest rates were observed for CT (53–75%, multiple subspecialties), MRI (51–78%, multiple subspecialties), and PET-CT (66%). (2) Survey response rate = 41% ( n = 52). Eighty-six percent of radiologists reported inserting hyperlinks to important findings in the majority of MRI, CT, and PET reports, with perceived average of 8.9 (SD = 5.4) seconds saved for each hyperlink placed due to automated data insertion (e.g., measurements, image/series numbers, etc.). Eighty-eight percent of radiologists associated this automation with fewer reporting errors. Ninety-five percent of radiologists (85% strongly) overall prefer reviewing previous reports with hyperlinks, citing greater clarity (98%) and time savings (96%). Sixty-nine percent of radiologists reported “almost always” utilizing automatic insertion of comparison exams into reports, saving a perceived 12.4 (SD = 6.7) seconds per report. Eighty-five percent of radiologists reported adding key images to reports, and 98% believe this helped consumer understanding. In conclusion, radiologists commonly create interactive multimedia reports when enabled. IMR was associated with perceptions of time savings, reduced errors, greater clarity, and greater value in reports.