Literature DB >> 21251856

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

Patricia A Carney1, 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.   

Abstract

RATIONALE AND
OBJECTIVES: To examine whether an intervention strategy consisting of a tailored web-based intervention, which provides individualized audit data with peer comparisons and other data that can affect recall, can assist radiologists in setting goals for reducing unnecessary recall.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a multisite randomized controlled study, we used a tailored web-based intervention to assess radiologists' ability to set goals to improve interpretive performance. The intervention provided peer comparison audit data, profiled breast cancer risk in each radiologist's respective patient populations, and evaluated the possible impact of medical malpractice concerns. We calculated the percentage of radiologists who would consider changing their recall rates, and examined the specific goals they set to reduce recall rates. We describe characteristics of radiologists who developed realistic goals to reduce their recall rates, and their reactions to the importance of patient risk factors and medical malpractice concerns.
RESULTS: Forty-one of 46 radiologists (89.1%) who started the intervention completed it. Thirty-one (72.1%) indicated they would like to change their recall rates and 30 (69.8%) entered a text response about changing their rates. Sixteen of the 30 (53.3%) radiologists who included a text response set realistic goals that would likely result in reducing unnecessary recall. The actual recall rates of those who set realistic goals were not statistically different from those who did not (13.8% vs. 15.1%, respectively). The majority of selected goals involved re-reviewing cases initially interpreted as Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System category 0. More than half of radiologists who commented on the influence of patient risk (56.3%) indicated that radiologists planned to pay more attention to risk factors, and 100% of participants commented on concerns radiologists have about malpractice with the primary concern (37.5%) being fear of lawsuits.
CONCLUSIONS: Interventions designed to reduce unnecessary recall can succeed in assisting radiologists to develop goals that may ultimately reduce unnecessary recall.
Copyright © 2011 AUR. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21251856      PMCID: PMC3065970          DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2010.11.017

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


  22 in total

1.  Commitment to change statements can predict actual change in practice.

Authors:  Jacqueline Wakefield; Carol P Herbert; Malcolm Maclure; Colin Dormuth; James M Wright; Jeanne Legare; Pamela Brett-MacLean; John Premi
Journal:  J Contin Educ Health Prof       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 1.355

2.  Radiologist uncertainty and the interpretation of screening.

Authors:  Patricia A Carney; Joann G Elmore; Linn A Abraham; Martha S Gerrity; R Edward Hendrick; Stephen H Taplin; William E Barlow; Gary R Cutter; Steven P Poplack; Carl J D'Orsi
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2004 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.583

3.  Accuracy of screening mammography interpretation by characteristics of radiologists.

Authors:  William E Barlow; Chen Chi; Patricia A Carney; Stephen H Taplin; Carl D'Orsi; Gary Cutter; R Edward Hendrick; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2004-12-15       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 4.  Breast cancer screening--the European experience.

Authors:  N M Perry
Journal:  Int J Fertil Womens Med       Date:  2004 Sep-Oct

5.  Variability in the interpretation of screening mammograms by US radiologists. Findings from a national sample.

Authors:  C A Beam; P M Layde; D C Sullivan
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  1996-01-22

6.  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

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.  Physician predictors of mammographic accuracy.

Authors:  Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Philip Chu; Diana L Miglioretti; Chris Quale; Robert D Rosenberg; Gary Cutter; Berta Geller; Peter Bacchetti; Edward A Sickles; Karla Kerlikowske
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2005-03-02       Impact factor: 13.506

9.  Variability in radiologists' interpretations of mammograms.

Authors:  J G Elmore; C K Wells; C H Lee; D H Howard; A R Feinstein
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1994-12-01       Impact factor: 91.245

10.  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

View more
  5 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.  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

Review 4.  A systematic review of electronic audit and feedback: intervention effectiveness and use of behaviour change theory.

Authors:  Timothy Tuti; Jacinta Nzinga; Martin Njoroge; Benjamin Brown; Niels Peek; Mike English; Chris Paton; Sabine N van der Veer
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2017-05-12       Impact factor: 7.327

5.  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

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.