Literature DB >> 20457418

Radiologists' attitudes and use of mammography audit reports.

Joann G Elmore1, Erin J Aiello Bowles, Berta Geller, Natalia Vukshich Oster, Patricia A Carney, Diana L Miglioretti, Diana S M Buist, Karla Kerlikowske, Edward A Sickles, Tracy Onega, Robert D Rosenberg, Bonnie C Yankaskas.   

Abstract

RATIONALE AND
OBJECTIVES: The US Mammography Quality Standards Act mandates medical audits to track breast cancer outcomes data associated with interpretive performance. The objectives of our study were to assess the content and style of audits and examine use of, attitudes toward, and perceptions of the value that radiologists' have regarding mandated medical audits.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Radiologists (n = 364) at mammography registries in seven US states contributing data to the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) were invited to participate. We examined radiologists' demographic characteristics, clinical experience, use, attitudes, and perceived value of audit reports from results of a self-administered survey. Information on the content and style of BCSC audits provided to radiologists and facilities was obtained from site investigators. Radiologists' characteristics were analyzed according to whether or not they self-reported receiving regular mammography audit reports. Latent class analysis was used to classify radiologists' individual perceptions of audit reports into overall probabilities of having "favorable," "less favorable," "neutral," or "unfavorable" attitudes toward audit reports.
RESULTS: Seventy-one percent (257 of 364) of radiologists completed the survey; two radiologists did not complete the audit survey question, leaving 255 for the final study cohort. Most survey respondents received regular audits (91%), paid close attention to their audit numbers (83%), found the reports valuable (87%), and felt that audit reports prompted them to improve interpretative performance (75%). Variability was noted in the style, target audience, and frequency of reports provided by the BCSC registries. One in four radiologists reported that if Congress mandates more intensive auditing requirements, but does not provide funding to support this regulation they may stop interpreting mammograms.
CONCLUSION: Radiologists working in breast imaging generally had favorable opinions of audit reports, which were mandated by Congress; however, almost 1 in 10 radiologists reported that they did not receive audits. Copyright (c) 2010 AUR. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20457418      PMCID: PMC2894027          DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2010.02.010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acad Radiol        ISSN: 1076-6332            Impact factor:   3.173


  21 in total

1.  The Mammography Quality Standards Act. An overview of the regulations and guidance.

Authors:  B S Monsees
Journal:  Radiol Clin North Am       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 2.303

2.  Mammography malpractice litigation and the impact of MQSA (Mammography Quality Standards Act).

Authors:  T Whiteman
Journal:  Adm Radiol       Date:  1995-03

3.  Benchmarking in healthcare: evaluating data and transforming it into action.

Authors:  H R Benson
Journal:  Radiol Manage       Date:  1996 Jan-Feb

4.  The mammography quality standards act: benefits and burdens.

Authors:  R L Birdwell; P A Wilcox
Journal:  Breast Dis       Date:  2001

Review 5.  Auditing your breast imaging practice: an evidence-based approach.

Authors:  Edward A Sickles
Journal:  Semin Roentgenol       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 0.800

6.  Quality assurance. How to audit your own mammography practice.

Authors:  E A Sickles
Journal:  Radiol Clin North Am       Date:  1992-01       Impact factor: 2.303

7.  Current medicolegal and confidentiality issues in large, multicenter research programs.

Authors:  P A Carney; B M Geller; H Moffett; M Ganger; M Sewell; W E Barlow; N Stalnaker; S H Taplin; C Sisk; V L Ernster; H A Wilkie; B Yankaskas; S P Poplack; N Urban; M M West; R D Rosenberg; S Michael; T D Mercurio; R Ballard-Barbash
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2000-08-15       Impact factor: 4.897

8.  Breast cancer detection rate: designing imaging trials to demonstrate improvements.

Authors:  Yulei Jiang; Diana L Miglioretti; Charles E Metz; Robert A Schmidt
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  Radiologist characteristics associated with interpretive performance of diagnostic mammography.

Authors:  Diana L Miglioretti; Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Linn Abraham; R James Brenner; Patricia A Carney; Erin J Aiello Bowles; Diana S M Buist; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2007-12-11       Impact factor: 13.506

10.  Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography.

Authors:  Patricia A Carney; Diana L Miglioretti; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Karla Kerlikowske; Robert Rosenberg; Carolyn M Rutter; Berta M Geller; Linn A Abraham; Steven H Taplin; Mark Dignan; Gary Cutter; Rachel Ballard-Barbash
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2003-02-04       Impact factor: 25.391

View more
  7 in total

1.  Web-based mammography audit feedback.

Authors:  Berta M Geller; Laura Ichikawa; Diana L Miglioretti; David Eastman
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 3.959

2.  Effect of radiologists' diagnostic work-up volume on interpretive performance.

Authors:  Diana S M Buist; Melissa L Anderson; Robert A Smith; Patricia A Carney; Diana L Miglioretti; Barbara S Monsees; Edward A Sickles; Stephen H Taplin; Berta M Geller; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Tracy L Onega
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2014-06-24       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Are radiologists' goals for mammography accuracy consistent with published recommendations?

Authors:  Sara L Jackson; Andrea J Cook; Diana L Miglioretti; Patricia A Carney; Berta M Geller; Tracy Onega; Robert D Rosenberg; R James Brenner; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2011-11-30       Impact factor: 3.173

4.  Feasibility and satisfaction with a tailored web-based audit intervention for recalibrating radiologists' thresholds for conducting additional work-up.

Authors:  Patricia A Carney; Berta M Geller; Edward A Sickles; Diana L Miglioretti; Erin J Aiello Bowles; Linn Abraham; Stephen A Feig; David Brown; Andrea J Cook; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2010-12-30       Impact factor: 3.173

5.  Mammographic interpretation: radiologists' ability to accurately estimate their performance and compare it with that of their peers.

Authors:  Andrea J Cook; Joann G Elmore; Weiwei Zhu; Sara L Jackson; Patricia A Carney; Chris Flowers; Tracy Onega; Berta Geller; Robert D Rosenberg; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 3.959

6.  Medical auditing of whole-breast screening ultrasonography.

Authors:  Min Jung Kim
Journal:  Ultrasonography       Date:  2017-02-16

7.  Breast cancer mammographic diagnosis performance in a public health institution: a retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Juliana M R B Mello; Fernando P Bittelbrunn; Marcio A B C Rockenbach; Guilherme G May; Leonardo M Vedolin; Marilia S Kruger; Matheus D Soldatelli; Guilherme Zwetsch; Gabriel T F de Miranda; Saone I P Teixeira; Bruna S Arruda
Journal:  Insights Imaging       Date:  2017-10-04
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.