S Hofvind1, R L Bennett2, J Brisson3, W Lee4, E Pelletier5, A Flugelman6, B Geller7. 1. Department of Screening, Cancer Registry of Norway, Oslo, Norway Solveig.Hofvind@kreftregisteret.no. 2. Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK. 3. Centre de Recherche du, CHU de Québec and Centre des Maladies du Sein Deschênes-Fabia, Hôpital du Saint-Sacrement, Quebec, Canada. 4. Discipline Medical Radiation Sciences, The University of Sydney, Lidcombe, NSW, Australia. 5. Institut National de santé Publique du Québec, Canada. 6. CHS National Cancer Control Center, Lady Davis Carmel Medical Center, Haifa, Israel. 7. Department of Family Medicine, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Providing feedback to mammography radiologists and facilities may improve interpretive performance. We conducted a web-based survey to investigate how and why such feedback is undertaken and used in mammographic screening programmes. METHODS: The survey was sent to representatives in 30 International Cancer Screening Network member countries where mammographic screening is offered. RESULTS: Seventeen programmes in 14 countries responded to the survey. Audit feedback was aimed at readers in 14 programmes, and facilities in 12 programmes. Monitoring quality assurance was the most common purpose of audit feedback. Screening volume, recall rate, and rate of screen-detected cancers were typically reported performance measures. Audit reports were commonly provided annually, but more frequently when target guidelines were not reached. CONCLUSION: The purpose, target audience, performance measures included, form and frequency of the audit feedback varied amongst mammographic screening programmes. These variations may provide a basis for those developing and improving such programmes.
OBJECTIVE: Providing feedback to mammography radiologists and facilities may improve interpretive performance. We conducted a web-based survey to investigate how and why such feedback is undertaken and used in mammographic screening programmes. METHODS: The survey was sent to representatives in 30 International Cancer Screening Network member countries where mammographic screening is offered. RESULTS: Seventeen programmes in 14 countries responded to the survey. Audit feedback was aimed at readers in 14 programmes, and facilities in 12 programmes. Monitoring quality assurance was the most common purpose of audit feedback. Screening volume, recall rate, and rate of screen-detected cancers were typically reported performance measures. Audit reports were commonly provided annually, but more frequently when target guidelines were not reached. CONCLUSION: The purpose, target audience, performance measures included, form and frequency of the audit feedback varied amongst mammographic screening programmes. These variations may provide a basis for those developing and improving such programmes.
Authors: Marthe Larsen; Camilla F Aglen; Christoph I Lee; Solveig R Hoff; Håkon Lund-Hanssen; Kristina Lång; Jan F Nygård; Giske Ursin; Solveig Hofvind Journal: Radiology Date: 2022-03-29 Impact factor: 29.146