Literature DB >> 27443339

Implementation and Validation of PACS Integrated Peer Review for Discrepancy Recording of Radiology Reporting.

A W Olthof1, P M A van Ooijen2.   

Abstract

The purpose of this work is to demonstrate the possibility of implementation of a PACS-integrated peer review system based on RADPEER™ classification providing a step-wise implementation plan utilizing features already present in the standard PACS implementation and without the requirement of additional software development. Furthermore, we show the usage and effects of the system during the first 30 months of usage. To allow fast and easy implementation into the daily workflow the key-word feature of the PACS was used. This feature allows to add a key-word to an imaging examination for easy searching in the PACS database (e.g. by entering keywords for different kinds of pathology). For peer review we implemented a keyword structure including a code for each of the existing RADPEER™ scoring language terms and a keyword with the phrase "second reading" followed by the name of the individual radiologist. The use of the short-keys to enter the codes in relation to the peer review was a simple to use solution. During the study 599 reports were peer reviewed. The active participation in this study of the radiologists varies and ranges from 3 to 327 reviews per radiologist. The number of peer review is highest in CT and CR. There are no significant technical obstacles to implement a PACS-integrated RADPEER™ -system based on key-words allowing easy integration of peer review into the daily routine without the requirement of additional software. Peer review implemented in a non-random setting based on relevant priors could already help in increasing the quality of radiological reporting and serve as continuing education among peers. Decisiveness, tact and trust are needed to promote use of the system and collaborative discussion of the results by radiologist.

Keywords:  Peer-review; Picture archiving and communication system; Quality improvement; Radiology

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27443339     DOI: 10.1007/s10916-016-0555-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Syst        ISSN: 0148-5598            Impact factor:   4.460


  26 in total

1.  Integration of radiologist peer review into clinical review workstation.

Authors:  K W McEnery; C T Suitor; S Hildebrand; R L Downs
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 4.056

2.  Strategies for radiology reporting and communication : part 4: quality assurance and education.

Authors:  Bruce I Reiner
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 4.056

3.  What are your goals for peer review? A framework for understanding differing methods.

Authors:  Anthony Fotenos; Paul Nagy
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 5.532

4.  The complementary nature of peer review and quality assurance data collection.

Authors:  Olga R Brook; Janneth Romero; Alexander Brook; Jonathan B Kruskal; Chun S Yam; Deborah Levine
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2014-09-01       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  State of Integration Between PACS and Other IT Systems: A National Survey of Academic Radiology Departments.

Authors:  Daniel Forsberg; Beverly Rosipko; Jeffrey L Sunshine; Pablo R Ros
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2016-03-22       Impact factor: 5.532

6.  Practical Approaches to Quality Improvement for Radiologists.

Authors:  Aine Marie Kelly; Paul Cronin
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 5.333

7.  Performance results for a workstation-integrated radiology peer review quality assurance program.

Authors:  Margaret M O'Keeffe; Todd M Davis; Kerry Siminoski
Journal:  Int J Qual Health Care       Date:  2016-02-17       Impact factor: 2.038

Review 8.  Key Concepts of Patient Safety in Radiology.

Authors:  David B Larson; Jonathan B Kruskal; Karl N Krecke; Lane F Donnelly
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  2015-09-04       Impact factor: 5.333

9.  Radiographic assessment of sacroiliitis by radiologists and rheumatologists: does training improve quality?

Authors:  A van Tubergen; L Heuft-Dorenbosch; G Schulpen; R Landewé; R Wijers; D van der Heijde; J van Engelshoven; Sj van der Linden
Journal:  Ann Rheum Dis       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 19.103

10.  Radiologist-initiated double reading of abdominal CT: retrospective analysis of the clinical importance of changes to radiology reports.

Authors:  Peter Mæhre Lauritzen; Jack Gunnar Andersen; Mali Victoria Stokke; Anne Lise Tennstrand; Rolf Aamodt; Thomas Heggelund; Fredrik A Dahl; Gunnar Sandbæk; Petter Hurlen; Pål Gulbrandsen
Journal:  BMJ Qual Saf       Date:  2016-03-24       Impact factor: 7.035

View more
  1 in total

Review 1.  Added value of double reading in diagnostic radiology,a systematic review.

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

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.