OBJECTIVE: Interpreting screening mammography accurately is challenging and requires ongoing education to maintain and improve interpretative skills. Recognizing this, many countries with organized breast screening programs have developed audit and feedback systems using national performance data to help radiologists assess and improve their skills. We developed and tested an interactive Website to provide screening and diagnostic mammography audit feedback with comparisons to national and regional benchmarks. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Radiologists who participate in three Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium registries in the United States were invited during 2009 and 2010 to use a Website that provides tabular and graphical displays of mammography audit reports with comparisons to national and regional performance measures. We collected data about the use and perceptions of the Website. RESULTS: Thirty-five of 111 invited radiologists used the Website from one to five times in a year. The most popular measure was sensitivity for both screening and diagnostic mammography, whereas a table with all measures was the most visited page. Of the 13 radiologists who completed the postuse survey, all found the Website easy to use and navigate, 11 found the benchmarks useful, and nine reported that they intended to improve a specific outcome measure that year. CONCLUSION: An interactive Website to provide customized mammography audit feedback reports to radiologists has the potential to be a powerful tool in improving interpretive performance. The conceptual framework of customized audit feedback reports can also be generalized to other imaging tests.
OBJECTIVE: Interpreting screening mammography accurately is challenging and requires ongoing education to maintain and improve interpretative skills. Recognizing this, many countries with organized breast screening programs have developed audit and feedback systems using national performance data to help radiologists assess and improve their skills. We developed and tested an interactive Website to provide screening and diagnostic mammography audit feedback with comparisons to national and regional benchmarks. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Radiologists who participate in three Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium registries in the United States were invited during 2009 and 2010 to use a Website that provides tabular and graphical displays of mammography audit reports with comparisons to national and regional performance measures. We collected data about the use and perceptions of the Website. RESULTS: Thirty-five of 111 invited radiologists used the Website from one to five times in a year. The most popular measure was sensitivity for both screening and diagnostic mammography, whereas a table with all measures was the most visited page. Of the 13 radiologists who completed the postuse survey, all found the Website easy to use and navigate, 11 found the benchmarks useful, and nine reported that they intended to improve a specific outcome measure that year. CONCLUSION: An interactive Website to provide customized mammography audit feedback reports to radiologists has the potential to be a powerful tool in improving interpretive performance. The conceptual framework of customized audit feedback reports can also be generalized to other imaging tests.
Authors: Robert D Rosenberg; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Linn A Abraham; Edward A Sickles; Constance D Lehman; Berta M Geller; Patricia A Carney; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana S M Buist; Donald L Weaver; William E Barlow; Rachel Ballard-Barbash Journal: Radiology Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: R Ballard-Barbash; S H Taplin; B C Yankaskas; V L Ernster; R D Rosenberg; P A Carney; W E Barlow; B M Geller; K Kerlikowske; B K Edwards; C F Lynch; N Urban; C A Chrvala; C R Key; S P Poplack; J K Worden; L G Kessler Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 1997-10 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Edward A Sickles; Diana L Miglioretti; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Berta M Geller; Jessica W T Leung; Robert D Rosenberg; Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Bonnie C Yankaskas Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 11.105
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
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
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
Authors: Benjamin Brown; Panos Balatsoukas; Richard Williams; Matthew Sperrin; Iain Buchan Journal: Int J Med Inform Date: 2016-07-16 Impact factor: 4.046
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
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