To investigate the current status of the use of ultrasound report templates in China and the related needs of ultrasound doctors.

Ultrasound doctors at all levels of hospitals in different provinces, autonomous regions, and municipalities directly under the central government in China were surveyed using an Internet online method to investigate the current status of ultrasound report template use and the degree of ultrasound doctors' subjective demand for the use of efficient and content-standardized ultrasound report templates. The differences in the results of ultrasound doctors' responses at different levels of hospitals were compared using the R×C chi-square test.

A total of 3863 valid responses were collected from ultrasound doctors at all levels in 31 provincial-level hospitals in China, excluding Hong Kong SAR, Macau SAR, and Taiwan. There were some differences in the response rate of the questionnaires in terms of geographical distribution, hospital level, and type of title. The highest response rates were found in North China, tertiary hospitals, and attending doctors, which were 30.44% (1176/3863), 53.46% (2065/3863), and 41.11% (1588/3863), respectively. There were 96 (2.49%, 96/3863) answers without ultrasound workstation or with ultrasound workstation but without report templates, and 3767 (97.51%, 3767/3863) answers with ultrasound workstation and report templates. In terms of efficiency in the use of ultrasound report templates, 43.40% (1635/3767) of ultrasound doctors gave feedback that they needed to use the mouse or keyboard for ≥4 steps to pull up the report template. The vast majority (93.05%, 3505/3767) of the respondents reported that they often or generally need to modify more text on the basis of the ultrasound report template when encountering positive cases. Regarding the comprehensiveness of templates for common conditions, 37.09% (1397/3767) had templates for almost all common conditions. For the reporting templates of common diseases, 35.07% (1321/3767) mostly had different templates for different severity levels. In terms of standardization of ultrasound report templates, regarding the survey on the comprehensiveness of the content description of the report template, only 16.11% (607/3767) of ultrasound doctors thought that the content description of the report template in their department was "very comprehensive", and based on the content described in the TI-RADS (Thyroid Ultrasound Imaging Reporting and Data System), only 22.40% (832/3715) of ultrasound doctors reported that every report was fully described. Regarding the survey on whether the terminology of the report templates is standardized, only 13.75% (518/3767) of the ultrasound doctors thought that the terminology of the report templates in their departments was "very standardized, and 56.78% (2139/3767) reported that their department's ultrasound report template contained words such as "light spot" and "light cluster". Among all respondents, the cumulative percentage of those who need a set of ultrasound report templates that is efficient in use and standardized in content was 98.52% (3806/3863). There were statistically significant differences in the responses to all questions by ultrasound doctors at different levels of hospitals (P＜0.01), and ultrasound report templates at tertiary hospitals were superior to those at other levels in terms of efficiency of use and degree of standardization.

The current ultrasound report templates in China have certain shortcomings in terms of efficiency and standardization. Most ultrasound doctors hope to have a set of efficient and standardized ultrasound report templates.