Garth H Rauscher1, Katherine Tossas-Milligan2, Teresita Macarol3, Paula M Grabler4, Anne Marie Murphy5. 1. Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois. Electronic address: garthr@uic.edu. 2. Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois; University of Illinois Cancer Center, Chicago, Illinois. 3. Advocate Health Care, Downers Grove, Illinois. 4. Director, Breast Imaging, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois. 5. Executive Director, Metropolitan Chicago Breast Cancer Task Force, Chicago, Illinois.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The Mammography Quality Standards Act requires that mammography facilities conduct audits, but there are no specifications on the metrics to be measured. In a previous mammography quality improvement project, the authors examined whether breast cancer screening facilities could collect the data necessary to show that they met certain quality benchmarks. Here the authors present trends from the first 5 years of data collection to examine whether continued participation in this quality improvement program was associated with an increase in the number of benchmarks met for breast cancer screening. METHODS: Participating facilities across the state of Illinois (n = 114) with at least two time points of data collected (2006, 2009, 2010, 2011, and/or 2013) were included. Facilities provided aggregate data on screening mammographic examinations and corresponding diagnostic follow-up information, which was used to estimate 13 measures and corresponding benchmarks for patient tracking, callback, cancer detection, loss to follow-up, and timeliness of care. RESULTS: The number of facilities able to show that they met specific benchmarks increased with length of participation for many but not all measures. Trends toward meeting more benchmarks were apparent for cancer detection, timely imaging, not lost at biopsy, known minimal status (P < .01 for all), and proportion of screening-detected cancers that were minimal and early stage (P < .001 for both). CONCLUSIONS: Participation in the quality improvement program seemed to lead to improvements in patient tracking, callback and detection, and timeliness benchmarks.
PURPOSE: The Mammography Quality Standards Act requires that mammography facilities conduct audits, but there are no specifications on the metrics to be measured. In a previous mammography quality improvement project, the authors examined whether breast cancer screening facilities could collect the data necessary to show that they met certain quality benchmarks. Here the authors present trends from the first 5 years of data collection to examine whether continued participation in this quality improvement program was associated with an increase in the number of benchmarks met for breast cancer screening. METHODS: Participating facilities across the state of Illinois (n = 114) with at least two time points of data collected (2006, 2009, 2010, 2011, and/or 2013) were included. Facilities provided aggregate data on screening mammographic examinations and corresponding diagnostic follow-up information, which was used to estimate 13 measures and corresponding benchmarks for patient tracking, callback, cancer detection, loss to follow-up, and timeliness of care. RESULTS: The number of facilities able to show that they met specific benchmarks increased with length of participation for many but not all measures. Trends toward meeting more benchmarks were apparent for cancer detection, timely imaging, not lost at biopsy, known minimal status (P < .01 for all), and proportion of screening-detected cancers that were minimal and early stage (P < .001 for both). CONCLUSIONS: Participation in the quality improvement program seemed to lead to improvements in patient tracking, callback and detection, and timeliness benchmarks.
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: 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: Constance D Lehman; Robert F Arao; Brian L Sprague; Janie M Lee; Diana S M Buist; Karla Kerlikowske; Louise M Henderson; Tracy Onega; Anna N A Tosteson; Garth H Rauscher; Diana L Miglioretti Journal: Radiology Date: 2016-12-05 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Garth H Rauscher; Anne Marie Murphy; Jennifer M Orsi; Danielle M Dupuy; Paula M Grabler; Christine B Weldon Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2013-11-21 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: David Ansell; Paula Grabler; Steven Whitman; Carol Ferrans; Jacqueline Burgess-Bishop; Linda Rae Murray; Ruta Rao; Elizabeth Marcus Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2009-08-18 Impact factor: 2.506