Melanie P Caserta1, Stephanie L Bonnett2, Melody C La Valley2, Salvatore De Meo2, Andrew W Bowman3. 1. Division Chair of Ultrasonography, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida. Electronic address: caserta.melanie@mayo.edu. 2. Division of Ultrasonography, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida. 3. Division Chair of Hospital and Emergency Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to systematically improve ultrasound image quality via the implementation of a quality control (QC) sonographer. METHODS: The position of a QC sonographer was created, whose responsibility was to preview ultrasound examinations performed by other sonographers and audit ultrasound examinations for image quality and protocol adherence. Retrospective audits of examinations performed before and after the implementation of the QC sonographer position were performed. Examinations from 17 sonographers were audited (16 examinations per sonographer), with a sample size of 272 examinations per audit. The QC sonographer graded the following imaging quality parameters (IQPs) as acceptable or needing improvement: gain, depth, color Doppler, spectral Doppler, and protocol adherence. Statistical comparisons were performed by a biostatistician using a χ2 test, with P < .05 used as the threshold for significance. RESULTS: The baseline audit (September 1, 2015 to November 30, 2015) revealed 439 instances of IQPs that required improvement. A second audit after establishing the QC sonographer role (August 1, 2016 to October 31, 2016) found 176 instances of IQPs that required improvement. A third, follow-up audit (May 1, 2018 to September 30, 2018) found 172 instances of IQPs that required improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Removing a sonographer from the clinical line to work as a QC sonographer resulted in a 60% decrease in parameter errors that was maintained over time. Another benefit of the QC sonographer role is improved sonographer education.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to systematically improve ultrasound image quality via the implementation of a quality control (QC) sonographer. METHODS: The position of a QC sonographer was created, whose responsibility was to preview ultrasound examinations performed by other sonographers and audit ultrasound examinations for image quality and protocol adherence. Retrospective audits of examinations performed before and after the implementation of the QC sonographer position were performed. Examinations from 17 sonographers were audited (16 examinations per sonographer), with a sample size of 272 examinations per audit. The QC sonographer graded the following imaging quality parameters (IQPs) as acceptable or needing improvement: gain, depth, color Doppler, spectral Doppler, and protocol adherence. Statistical comparisons were performed by a biostatistician using a χ2 test, with P < .05 used as the threshold for significance. RESULTS: The baseline audit (September 1, 2015 to November 30, 2015) revealed 439 instances of IQPs that required improvement. A second audit after establishing the QC sonographer role (August 1, 2016 to October 31, 2016) found 176 instances of IQPs that required improvement. A third, follow-up audit (May 1, 2018 to September 30, 2018) found 172 instances of IQPs that required improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Removing a sonographer from the clinical line to work as a QC sonographer resulted in a 60% decrease in parameter errors that was maintained over time. Another benefit of the QC sonographer role is improved sonographer education.