BACKGROUND: The goal of this study was to examine mammography facility characteristics and explore how such characteristics may impact repeat mammography use. METHODS: Mammography facility characteristics were obtained through a mailed a 21-item survey to Kansas mammography facilities. Medicare mammography claims were used to calculate facility-specific repeat mammography rates. Administrative data included female Kansas beneficiaries aged 65 years and older (N = 39,035) with a baseline mammogram during 1999. Beneficiaries with a mammography claim 12-18 months after their baseline mammogram were deemed to have had a repeat mammogram. RESULTS: Completed surveys were received from 90% (N = 79) of the 97 facilities serving >10 beneficiaries. Most facilities were in rural communities (58%), had an on-site radiologist (58%), and mailed mammography reminders to patients (63%). Extended hours of operation and the acceptance of self-referrals were uncommon (33% and 37%, respectively). Few facilities employed a quality improvement team (33%) or measured annual patient return rates (18%), but many measured patient satisfaction (57%). Of the beneficiaries, 61% had a repeat mammogram during the subsequent 12-18 months (range, 0% to 84%). Facilities notifying primary care providers of patients due for mammograms had higher repeat mammography rates. Multiple regression analyses found that higher repeat mammography rates were associated with facilities that accepted self-referrals, measured patient satisfaction, were in urban areas, and served a larger proportion of white beneficiaries. CONCLUSION: Mammography facility characteristics and repeat mammography rates vary widely. Although modifiable facility characteristics that may influence repeat mammography need additional study, results from this study indicate that mammography facilities are an opportunistic arena for quality improvement endeavors.
BACKGROUND: The goal of this study was to examine mammography facility characteristics and explore how such characteristics may impact repeat mammography use. METHODS: Mammography facility characteristics were obtained through a mailed a 21-item survey to Kansas mammography facilities. Medicare mammography claims were used to calculate facility-specific repeat mammography rates. Administrative data included female Kansas beneficiaries aged 65 years and older (N = 39,035) with a baseline mammogram during 1999. Beneficiaries with a mammography claim 12-18 months after their baseline mammogram were deemed to have had a repeat mammogram. RESULTS: Completed surveys were received from 90% (N = 79) of the 97 facilities serving >10 beneficiaries. Most facilities were in rural communities (58%), had an on-site radiologist (58%), and mailed mammography reminders to patients (63%). Extended hours of operation and the acceptance of self-referrals were uncommon (33% and 37%, respectively). Few facilities employed a quality improvement team (33%) or measured annual patient return rates (18%), but many measured patient satisfaction (57%). Of the beneficiaries, 61% had a repeat mammogram during the subsequent 12-18 months (range, 0% to 84%). Facilities notifying primary care providers of patients due for mammograms had higher repeat mammography rates. Multiple regression analyses found that higher repeat mammography rates were associated with facilities that accepted self-referrals, measured patient satisfaction, were in urban areas, and served a larger proportion of white beneficiaries. CONCLUSION: Mammography facility characteristics and repeat mammography rates vary widely. Although modifiable facility characteristics that may influence repeat mammography need additional study, results from this study indicate that mammography facilities are an opportunistic arena for quality improvement endeavors.
Authors: Hoo-Yeon Lee; Sun Mi Lim; Mi Ah Han; Jae Kwan Jun; Kui Son Choi; Myung-Il Hahm; Eun-Cheol Park Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2011-09-28 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Steven S Coughlin; Lisa C Richardson; Jean Orelien; Trevor Thompson; Thomas B Richards; Susan A Sabatino; Wei Wu; Darryl Cooney Journal: Open Health Serv Policy J Date: 2009-01-01
Authors: Elisabeth F Beaber; Brian L Sprague; Anna N A Tosteson; Jennifer S Haas; Tracy Onega; Marilyn M Schapira; Anne Marie McCarthy; Christopher I Li; Sally D Herschorn; Constance D Lehman; Karen J Wernli; William E Barlow Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2018-11-27 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: L Elizabeth Goldman; Sebastien J-P A Haneuse; Diana L Miglioretti; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana S M Buist; Bonnie Yankaskas; Rebecca Smith-Bindman Journal: Med Care Date: 2008-07 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: My von Euler-Chelpin; Anne Helene Olsen; Sisse Njor; Ilse Vejborg; Walter Schwartz; Elsebeth Lynge Journal: Eur J Epidemiol Date: 2006 Impact factor: 8.082
Authors: Jennifer M Gierisch; Suzanne C O'Neill; Barbara K Rimer; Jessica T DeFrank; J Michael Bowling; Celette Sugg Skinner Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Date: 2009-05-29 Impact factor: 2.984