The relationship between oncologists and peripheral hospital radiologists in the North-West of England.
Affiliation
Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Christie Hospital NHS Trust, Manchester, UK.Issue Date
2002-04
Metadata
Show full item recordAbstract
AIM: To audit the relationship between Cancer Centre oncologists visiting peripheral hospitals and peripheral hospital radiologists by assessing (i) oncologists' knowledge of local radiological services; (ii) oncologists' perceptions of peripheral radiological services; (iii) peripheral radiologist's perceptions of oncologists; (iv) barriers to communication. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A postal questionnaire was sent to all radiology departments visited by an oncologist, and to all medical and clinical oncologists from two regional oncology centres. RESULTS: The response rate was 100% (21 peripheral hospital radiology departments and all 35 oncologists). (i) Oncologists' knowledge of peripheral hospital imaging modalities was limited (especially MRI and intervention). (ii) 72% of oncologists rated the peripheral hospital radiology service as excellent or good, 46% rated the radiology report quality excellent to good. Deficiencies in oncological reports were identified. (iii) 44% of radiologists thought the oncologist did not relate well with the local radiology department. 50% of radiologists did not know the visiting oncologist's specialist interest. (iv) 69% of oncologists did not regularly attend peripheral hospital clinico-radiological meetings. Lack of written and oral information was hampering both specialties. CONCLUSION: Communication between oncologists and the local radiology department should include: (1) information about local radiology services for visiting oncologists (including trainees) and on the oncology team for radiologists; (2) standardized report content; (3) improved clinical information for radiologists; (4) regular clinico-radiological meetings.Citation
The relationship between oncologists and peripheral hospital radiologists in the North-West of England. 2002, 57 (4):300-4 Clin RadiolJournal
Clinical RadiologyDOI
10.1053/crad.2001.0804PubMed ID
12014877Type
ArticleLanguage
enISSN
0009-9260ae974a485f413a2113503eed53cd6c53
10.1053/crad.2001.0804
Scopus Count
Collections
Related articles
- Teleradiology and picture archiving and communications systems: changed pattern of communication between clinicians and radiologists.
- Authors: Aas IH, Geitung JT
- Issue date: 2005
- Survey of hospital clinicians' preferences regarding the format of radiology reports.
- Authors: Plumb AA, Grieve FM, Khan SH
- Issue date: 2009 Apr
- Perceptions and attitudes of clinical oncologists on complementary and alternative medicine: a nationwide survey in Japan.
- Authors: Hyodo I, Eguchi K, Nishina T, Endo H, Tanimizu M, Mikami I, Takashima S, Imanishi J
- Issue date: 2003 Jun 1
- Radiology errors: are we learning from our mistakes?
- Authors: Mankad K, Hoey ET, Jones JB, Tirukonda P, Smith JT
- Issue date: 2009 Oct
- Radiology reporting in oncology-oncologists' perspective.
- Authors: Spînu-Popa EV, Cioni D, Neri E
- Issue date: 2021 Nov 25