Literature DB >> 24842585

RADPEER peer review: relevance, use, concerns, challenges, and direction forward.

Hani Abujudeh1, Robert S Pyatt2, Michael A Bruno3, Alison L Chetlen3, David Buck4, Susan K Hobbs5, Christopher Roth6, Charles Truwit7, Rajan Agarwal8, Scott T O Kennedy9, Lucille Glenn10.   

Abstract

RADPEER is a product developed by the ACR that aims to assist radiologists with quality assessment and improvement through peer review. The program opened in 2002, was initially offered to physician groups in 2003, developed an electronic version in 2005 (eRADPEER), revised the scoring system in 2009, and first surveyed the RADPEER membership in 2010. In 2012, a survey was sent to 16,000 ACR member radiologists, both users and nonusers of RADPEER, with the goal of understanding how to make RADPEER more relevant to its members. A total of 31 questions were used, some of which were repeated from the 2010 survey. The ACR's RADPEER committee has published 3 papers on the program since its inception. In this report, the authors summarize the survey results and suggest future opportunities for making RADPEER more useful to its membership.
Copyright © 2014 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords:  OPPE; PQI; RADPEER; peer review; quality and safety

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24842585     DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2014.02.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol        ISSN: 1546-1440            Impact factor:   5.532


  7 in total

1.  The quality movement or making radiology fun again.

Authors:  C Craig Blackmore
Journal:  Emerg Radiol       Date:  2015-02-12

2.  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 3.  Practical considerations when implementing peer learning conferences.

Authors:  Anh-Vu Ngo; A Luana Stanescu; David W Swenson; Michael M Moore; Raymond W Sze; Ramesh S Iyer
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2019-03-29

4.  Bias in Neuroradiology Peer Review: Impact of a "Ding" on "Dinging" Others.

Authors:  P Charkhchi; B Wang; B Caffo; D M Yousem
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2018-12-06       Impact factor: 3.825

5.  Simplified Readability Metric Drives Improvement of Radiology Reports: an Experiment on Ultrasound Reports at a Pediatric Hospital.

Authors:  Wei Chen; Claire Durkin; Yungui Huang; Brent Adler; Steve Rust; Simon Lin
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 4.056

6.  Diagnostic Errors in Cerebrovascular Pathology: Retrospective Analysis of a Neuroradiology Database at a Large Tertiary Academic Medical Center.

Authors:  G Biddle; R Assadsangabi; K Broadhead; L Hacein-Bey; V Ivanovic
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2022-08-04       Impact factor: 4.966

Review 7.  Added value of double reading in diagnostic radiology,a systematic review.

Authors:  Håkan Geijer; Mats Geijer
Journal:  Insights Imaging       Date:  2018-03-28
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.