Literature DB >> 17056874

Survey of the use of quality indicators in academic radiology departments.

Silvia Ondategui-Parra1, Sukru M Erturk, Pablo R Ros.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to determine whether quality in academic radiology departments in the United States is systematically measured through indicators and evaluated by preset standards.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study using a validated survey sent to Society of Chairmen of Academic Radiology Departments (SCARD) members and studied type, frequency of monitoring, and use of preset standards for evaluation of quality indicators. Statistical methods were descriptive summary statistics, chi-square test, analysis of variance, and Spearman's rank correlation test.
RESULTS: The response rate was 42% (55/132). Most responding hospitals were from the Northeast (20/55, 36.4%) and Midwest (18/55, 32.7%). About 58% (32/55) of the responding hospitals had more than 500 beds in operation; 50.9% (28/55) of the radiology departments performed 200,000-400,000 examinations per year. Among the 80% of departments (44/55) that monitored patient satisfaction, only 49.1% and 45.5% assessed referring physician and employee satisfaction, respectively. The most frequently monitored customer satisfaction indicator, patient satisfaction, was monitored quarterly or less frequently by 70.5% (31/44) of departments; about 45.5% (20/44) had preset standards for this indicator. MRI and CT were monitored for patient appointment access by 80% (44/55) and 72.7% (40/55) of departments, respectively; 59.1% (26/44) and 62.5% (25/40) of departments applied preset standards to these indicators, respectively. The reporting-time indicator monitored most frequently was report turnaround time (45/55, 81.8%). None of the differences in mean numbers and monitoring frequencies of the indicators and the use of preset standards to evaluate them by region and size of departments were significant (p >0.05).
CONCLUSION: Use of quality management indicators, particularly customer satisfaction indicators, is not a fully standardized and established process for academic radiology departments in the United States.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17056874     DOI: 10.2214/AJR.05.1064

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   3.959


  5 in total

Review 1.  ETL Framework for Real-Time Business Intelligence over Medical Imaging Repositories.

Authors:  Tiago Marques Godinho; Rui Lebre; João Rafael Almeida; Carlos Costa
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2019-10       Impact factor: 4.056

2.  Quality metrics currently used in academic radiology departments: results of the QUALMET survey.

Authors:  Eric A Walker; Jonelle M Petscavage-Thomas; Joseph S Fotos; Michael A Bruno
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2017-01-24       Impact factor: 3.039

3.  Identifying radiological needs of referring clinicians.

Authors:  Li Zhang; Antje Hefke; Jens Figiel; Ulrike Schwarz; Marga Rominger; Klaus Jochen Klose
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 4.056

4.  From Information Management to Information Visualization: Development of Radiology Dashboards.

Authors:  Mahtab Karami; Reza Safdari
Journal:  Appl Clin Inform       Date:  2016-05-11       Impact factor: 2.342

Review 5.  Mapping turnaround times (TAT) to a generic timeline: a systematic review of TAT definitions in clinical domains.

Authors:  Bernhard Breil; Fleur Fritz; Volker Thiemann; Martin Dugas
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2011-05-24       Impact factor: 2.796

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.