Literature DB >> 19564252

Peer review in diagnostic radiology: current state and a vision for the future.

Shmuel Mahgerefteh1, Jonathan B Kruskal, Chun S Yam, Arye Blachar, Jacob Sosna.   

Abstract

Over the past decade, the level of interest in improving the quality of healthcare in the United States has increased. New requirements established by regulatory organizations require the ongoing practice-based evaluation of physician performance. Peer review, a key process in physician performance evaluation, is geared primarily toward measuring diagnostic accuracy. Accuracy may be measured in terms of interpretive agreement or disagreement during a blinded double reading or in workstation-integrated evaluations. Each method of assessing diagnostic accuracy has strengths and weaknesses that should be carefully considered before it is implemented in a particular departmental or institutional setting. (c) RSNA, 2009.

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19564252     DOI: 10.1148/rg.295095086

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiographics        ISSN: 0271-5333            Impact factor:   5.333


  14 in total

1.  Early experience using an online reporting system for interventional radiology procedure-related complications integrated with a digital dictation system.

Authors:  Sanjay Gupta; Jay Patel; Kevin McEnery; Michael J Wallace; Kamran Ahrar; Chuck Suitor; Marshall E Hicks
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 4.056

2.  Quality control in neuroradiology: impact of trainees on discrepancy rates.

Authors:  V G Viertel; L S Babiarz; M Carone; J S Lewin; D M Yousem
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2012-02-02       Impact factor: 3.825

3.  A data-driven approach for quality assessment of radiologic interpretations.

Authors:  William Hsu; Simon X Han; Corey W Arnold; Alex At Bui; Dieter R Enzmann
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2015-11-25       Impact factor: 4.497

4.  Interrater variation in scoring radiological discrepancies.

Authors:  B Mucci; H Murray; A Downie; K Osborne
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2013-07-05       Impact factor: 3.039

5.  Detecting Technical Image Quality in Radiology Reports.

Authors:  Thusitha Mabotuwana; Varun S Bhandarkar; Christopher S Hall; Martin L Gunn
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2018-12-05

6.  Survey of peer review programs among pediatric radiologists: report from the SPR Quality and Safety Committee.

Authors:  Ramesh S Iyer; David W Swenson; Neil Anand; Einat Blumfield; Tushar Chandra; Govind B Chavhan; Thomas R Goodman; Naeem Khan; Michael M Moore; Thang D Ngo; Christina L Sammet; Raymond W Sze; Chido D Vera; A Luana Stanescu
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2019-03-29

Review 7.  Redefining the Practice of Peer Review Through Intelligent Automation Part 1: Creation of a Standardized Methodology and Referenceable Database.

Authors:  Bruce I Reiner
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2017-10       Impact factor: 4.056

8.  Online Radiology Reporting with Peer Review as a Learning and Feedback Tool in Radiology; Implementation, Validity, and Student Impressions.

Authors:  Fintan J McEvoy; Nicholas W Shen; Dorte H Nielsen; Lene E Buelund; Peter Holm
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 4.056

9.  Implementation and Validation of PACS Integrated Peer Review for Discrepancy Recording of Radiology Reporting.

Authors:  A W Olthof; P M A van Ooijen
Journal:  J Med Syst       Date:  2016-07-21       Impact factor: 4.460

10.  A Comprehensive Approach Towards Quality and Safety in Diagnostic Imaging Services: Our Experience at a Rural Tertiary Health Care Center.

Authors:  Viral Patel; Geetika Sindhwani; Monica Gupta; Sweta Arora; Arpita Mishra; Jayesh Bhatt; Manali Arora; Anisha Gehani
Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res       Date:  2017-08-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.