Normal Chest X-Ray Report Template (2-View)

Copy-ready normal chest radiograph report template: PA and lateral, structured EXAMINATION / TECHNIQUE / FINDINGS / IMPRESSION, with dictation notes on lines, devices and comparison wording.

EXAMINATION: Chest radiograph, PA and lateral views.

CLINICAL HISTORY: [indication]

COMPARISON: None available.

TECHNIQUE: Two views of the chest.

FINDINGS:
Lungs: Clear. No focal consolidation, pleural effusion or pneumothorax.
Heart: Normal cardiomediastinal silhouette.
Mediastinum: No mediastinal widening or hilar enlargement.
Bones: No acute osseous abnormality.
Soft tissues: Unremarkable.

IMPRESSION:
1. No acute cardiopulmonary process.

Dictation notes

• State the number of views in TECHNIQUE — a single portable frontal view is not “2 views”, and payors audit this.
• Name every line and tube with its tip position; “lines and tubes unchanged” only works when a comparison exists.
• If no prior exists, say “None available” rather than omitting COMPARISON — MIPS measures look for the section.

Related references

Fleischner pulmonary nodule follow-up · Lung-RADS calculator

Frequently asked questions

What sections belong in a normal chest X-ray report?

A structured chest radiograph report contains EXAMINATION, CLINICAL HISTORY, COMPARISON, TECHNIQUE, FINDINGS and IMPRESSION. FINDINGS is typically organized by anatomy — lungs, heart, mediastinum, bones and soft tissues — each addressed with explicit negatives such as no focal consolidation, pleural effusion or pneumothorax. A normal study closes with an impression like 'No acute cardiopulmonary process.' Stating each section, even when negative, supports billing audits and quality measures.

Why should a chest X-ray report state the number of views?

The TECHNIQUE section should name the views obtained — for example 'PA and lateral' — because the number of views determines the billing code, and payors audit it. A single portable frontal radiograph is not a two-view examination and should not be reported as one. Stating the views also tells later readers what the study could and could not evaluate, such as retrocardiac disease on a lateral view.

How should the comparison section read when no prior study exists?

When no prior imaging is available, the report should state 'COMPARISON: None available' rather than omitting the section entirely. Quality measures, including MIPS, look for an explicit comparison statement, and its absence reads as an oversight rather than a true lack of priors. When lines and tubes are present, each should be named with its tip position; 'lines and tubes unchanged' only works when a comparison actually exists.

← All report templates