OBJECTIVE: To describe the process of training for measuring nuchal translucency at five clinical centers in North America and to evaluate methods of quality assurance and feedback. DESIGN: Throughout a period of 18 months, the performance of sonographers in measuring fetal nuchal translucency was monitored using qualitative and quantitative methods of review. After 12 months, different approaches (written and personal feedback) were used to inform sonographers of technical aspects that needed to or could be improved. RESULTS: On initial qualitative review, discrepancies in judgment from different reviewers coincided with suboptimal magnification, failure to visualize the amniotic membrane and/or use of cross-shaped calipers. At subsequent global review, 13 (29%) images of nuchal translucency measurements were considered unacceptable. Quantitative assessment revealed that, during the first part of the study, the means from four sonographers were significantly smaller and the mean from the fifth sonographer was significantly larger than expected on the basis of findings from The Fetal Medicine Foundation (P < 0.0001). Following feedback, sonographers who underestimated nuchal translucency and who received a written report only did not change measurements overall (P = 0.9759). In contrast, those who received additional intervention showed a marked difference (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Global qualitative review of images from one sonographer may be preferable to assessment of individual aspects of images. Results from global qualitative review correspond well with findings from quantitative analysis, indicating that the latter can be applied for ongoing audit. Observation of divergent results should prompt extensive personal feedback, rather than a written report, to prevent sonographers from settling in their own, inappropriate technique.
OBJECTIVE: To describe the process of training for measuring nuchal translucency at five clinical centers in North America and to evaluate methods of quality assurance and feedback. DESIGN: Throughout a period of 18 months, the performance of sonographers in measuring fetal nuchal translucency was monitored using qualitative and quantitative methods of review. After 12 months, different approaches (written and personal feedback) were used to inform sonographers of technical aspects that needed to or could be improved. RESULTS: On initial qualitative review, discrepancies in judgment from different reviewers coincided with suboptimal magnification, failure to visualize the amniotic membrane and/or use of cross-shaped calipers. At subsequent global review, 13 (29%) images of nuchal translucency measurements were considered unacceptable. Quantitative assessment revealed that, during the first part of the study, the means from four sonographers were significantly smaller and the mean from the fifth sonographer was significantly larger than expected on the basis of findings from The Fetal Medicine Foundation (P < 0.0001). Following feedback, sonographers who underestimated nuchal translucency and who received a written report only did not change measurements overall (P = 0.9759). In contrast, those who received additional intervention showed a marked difference (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Global qualitative review of images from one sonographer may be preferable to assessment of individual aspects of images. Results from global qualitative review correspond well with findings from quantitative analysis, indicating that the latter can be applied for ongoing audit. Observation of divergent results should prompt extensive personal feedback, rather than a written report, to prevent sonographers from settling in their own, inappropriate technique.