Background and Objectives The purpose of this study is to examine differences in image quality, discrepancy rates, productivity and user experience between remote reporting over Virtual Application (VA) using visually calibrated monitors, and reporting using diagnostic grade workstations in hospital premises. Methods Three specialist accredited radiologists examined and provisionally reported outpatient CT and MR studies over PACS delivered as a VA, using visually calibrated monitors from their homes. They then proceeded to view the same studies within hospital premises and issue a final report. Surveys were filled out for each imaging study. Discrepancies were reviewed and assigned RADPEER scores. Results A total of 51 outpatient CT and MRIs were read. Relative to hospital premise reporting, on a Likert scale of 5 (the higher the better), average image quality was 3.9, speed of loading and image manipulation was 4.4 and productivity was 4.1. Remote reporting user experience did not differ significantly between CT versus MRI studies. Complete concordance rate was 80.4% (41/51) and only one of the studies had a significant discrepancy, which may have been due to extra time given to interpretation. All three radiologists reported factors influencing image display and quality as the top factor impacting remote reporting throughput. Conclusions Remote reporting over VA with visually calibrated monitors for CT and MR can be useful in periods of staffing difficulty to augment on-site radiologists, though attention must be paid to its limitations and policies defined by local leadership with reference to relevant national position
