Literature DB >> 21193335

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

Patricia A Carney1, 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.   

Abstract

RATIONALE AND
OBJECTIVES: To examine the feasibility of and satisfaction with a tailored web-based intervention designed to decrease radiologists' recommendation of inappropriate additional work-up after a screening mammogram.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We developed a web-based educational intervention designed to reduce inappropriate recall. Radiologists were randomly assigned to participate in an early intervention group or a late (control) intervention group, the latter of which served as a control for a 9-month follow-up period, after which they were invited to participate in the intervention. Intervention content was derived from our prior research and included three modules: 1) an introduction to audit statistics for mammography performance; 2) a review of data showing radiologists' inflated perceptions of medical malpractice risks related to breast imaging, and 3) a review of data on breast cancer risk among women seen in their practices. Embedded within the intervention were individualized audit data for each participating radiologists obtained from the national Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.
RESULTS: Seventy-four radiologists (37.8%; 74/196) consented to the intervention, which was completed by 67.5% (27/40) of those randomized to the early intervention group and 41.2% (14/34) of those randomized to the late (control) group. Thus, a total of 41 (55%) completed the intervention. On average, three log-ins were used to complete the program (range 1-14), which took approximately 1 hour. Ninety-five percent found the program moderately to very helpful in understanding how to calculate basic performance measures. Ninety-three percent found viewing their own performance measures moderately to very helpful, and 83% reported it being moderately to very important to learn that the breast cancer risk in their screening population program was lower than perceived. The percentage of radiologists who reported that the risk of medical malpractice influences their recall rates dropped from 36.3% preintervention to 17.8% after intervention with a similar drop in perceived influence of malpractice risk on their recommendations for breast biopsy (36.4 to 17.3%). More than 75% of radiologists answered the postintervention knowledge questions correctly, and the percent of time spent in breast imaging did not appear to influence responses. The majority (>92%) of participants correctly responded that the target recall rate in the United States is 9%. The mean self-reported recall rates were 13.0 for radiologists spending <40% time in breast imaging and 14.9% for those spending >40% time spent in breast imaging, which was highly correlated with their actual recall rates (0.991; P < .001).
CONCLUSIONS: Radiologists who begin an internet-based tailored intervention designed to help reduce unnecessary recall will likely complete it, although only 55% who consented to the study actually undertook the intervention. Participants found the program useful in helping them understand why their recall rates may be elevated.
Copyright © 2011 AUR. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21193335      PMCID: PMC3034778          DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2010.10.011

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


  23 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.  Radiologists' attitudes and use of mammography audit reports.

Authors:  Joann G Elmore; 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
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 3.173

3.  Does litigation influence medical practice? The influence of community radiologists' medical malpractice perceptions and experience on screening mammography.

Authors:  Joann G Elmore; Stephen H Taplin; William E Barlow; Gary R Cutter; Carl J D'Orsi; R Edward Hendrick; Linn A Abraham; Jessica S Fosse; Patricia A Carney
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Role of Adult Learning Theory in Evaluating and Designing Strategies for Teaching Residents in Ambulatory Settings.

Authors:  Tracy L. Laidley; Clarence H. Braddock III
Journal:  Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 3.853

5.  Comparing screening mammography for early breast cancer detection in Vermont and Norway.

Authors:  Solveig Hofvind; Pamela M Vacek; Joan Skelly; Donald L Weaver; Berta M Geller
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2008-07-29       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 6.  Internet-based learning in the health professions: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  David A Cook; Anthony J Levinson; Sarah Garside; Denise M Dupras; Patricia J Erwin; Victor M Montori
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2008-09-10       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  Comparison of screening mammography in the United States and the United kingdom.

Authors:  Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Philip W Chu; Diana L Miglioretti; Edward A Sickles; Roger Blanks; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Janet K Bobo; Nancy C Lee; Matthew G Wallis; Julietta Patnick; Karla Kerlikowske
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2003-10-22       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  Variability in interpretive performance at screening mammography and radiologists' characteristics associated with accuracy.

Authors:  Joann G Elmore; Sara L Jackson; Linn Abraham; Diana L Miglioretti; Patricia A Carney; Berta M Geller; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Karla Kerlikowske; Tracy Onega; Robert D Rosenberg; Edward A Sickles; Diana S M Buist
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2009-10-28       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  The association between obesity and screening mammography accuracy.

Authors:  Joann G Elmore; Patricia A Carney; Linn A Abraham; William E Barlow; Joseph R Egger; Jessica S Fosse; Gary R Cutter; R Edward Hendrick; Carl J D'Orsi; Prashni Paliwal; Stephen H Taplin
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2004-05-24

10.  Predictors of radiologists' perceived risk of malpractice lawsuits in breast imaging.

Authors:  John F Dick; Thomas H Gallagher; R James Brenner; Joyce P Yi; Lisa M Reisch; Linn Abraham; Diana L Miglioretti; Patricia A Carney; Gary R Cutter; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 3.959

View more
  4 in total

1.  Impact of an educational intervention designed to reduce unnecessary recall during screening mammography.

Authors:  Patricia A Carney; Linn Abraham; Andrea Cook; Stephen A Feig; Edward A Sickles; Diana L Miglioretti; Berta M Geller; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2012-06-23       Impact factor: 3.173

2.  Feasibility and acceptability of conducting a randomized clinical trial designed to improve interpretation of screening mammography.

Authors:  Patricia A Carney; Andy Bogart; Edward A Sickles; Robert Smith; Diana S M Buist; Karla Kerlikowske; Tracy Onega; Diana L Miglioretti; Robert Rosenberg; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Berta M Geller
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 3.173

3.  Using a tailored web-based intervention to set goals to reduce unnecessary recall.

Authors:  Patricia A Carney; Erin J Aiello Bowles; Edward A Sickles; Berta M Geller; Stephen A Feig; Sara Jackson; David Brown; Andrea Cook; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Diana L Miglioretti; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2011-01-20       Impact factor: 3.173

4.  Systematic review and narrative synthesis of computerized audit and feedback systems in healthcare.

Authors:  Jung Yin Tsang; Niels Peek; Iain Buchan; Sabine N van der Veer; Benjamin Brown
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2022-05-11       Impact factor: 7.942

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.