A non-diagnostic or degraded study should be reported as such. State what limited the examination (motion, contrast timing, artefact or incomplete coverage), what could and could not be assessed, and what repeat or alternative imaging would resolve the question.
This helps the referrer avoid false reassurance and helps the department track recurring technical problems.
- Name the technical limitation.
- State what could not be assessed.
- Suggest a repeat or alternative study if it would change management.
- Feed recurring problems back to the technologists.
Why it matters
A confident report on a poor study is a recognised route to missed diagnoses.
Read the rest in the app
You have read your two free briefings this month. The app carries all 27 specialties, every morning, free — and this finding is waiting in it.
Scan to keep reading on your phone. No account needed to start.
Tomorrow morning, before your first patient
One edition a day for radiology, written by the desk, every claim tied to its paper. Six minutes.
Get the app — free