Literature DB >> 7785586

The mammography audit: a primer for the mammography quality standards act (MQSA).

M N Linver1, J R Osuch, R J Brenner, R A Smith.   

Abstract

The medical audit of a mammography practice is a recognized method for evaluating mammography and the accuracy of mammographic interpretation [1-4]. As such, portions of the audit will become integral to the quality assurance activities of every mammography practice under the Mammography Quality Standards Act (MQSA) of 1992, administered by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FDA Interim Rules, which became effective October 1, 1994, state that "each facility shall establish a system for reviewing outcome data from all mammography performed, including follow-up on the disposition of positive mammograms and correlation of surgical biopsy results with mammogram reports" [5]. It is expected that the proposed final rules, due to be released for public comment in 1995, will require collection of additional data for medical audits (public meeting of the National Mammography Advisory Committee, May 3, 1994). Although most mammography practices are now collecting clinical outcomes data on abnormal mammographic examinations, very few have established an organized and deliberate system of data collection necessary for a more complete mammography audit [6]. A detailed discussion of and recommendations for such an audit were recently published as part of the Quality Determinants of Mammography Guideline by the Agency for Healthcare Policy and Research (AHCPR) [7]. As members and consultants on the multidisciplinary panel that produced the guideline, we offer the following review of the various elements, definitions, and processes of the mammography audit. This is intended as a primer for all radiologists who will be performing some of the same audit activities for the MQSA.

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7785586     DOI: 10.2214/ajr.165.1.7785586

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   3.959


  12 in total

1.  Radiologists' attitudes and use of mammography audit reports.

Authors:  Joann G Elmore; Erin J Aiello Bowles; Berta Geller; Natalia Vukshich Oster; Patricia A Carney; Diana L Miglioretti; Diana S M Buist; Karla Kerlikowske; Edward A Sickles; Tracy Onega; Robert D Rosenberg; Bonnie C Yankaskas
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 3.173

2.  Strategies for radiology reporting and communication part 3: patient communication and education.

Authors:  Bruce I Reiner
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 4.056

3.  Outcomes of recommendations for breast biopsies in women receiving mammograms from a county health van.

Authors:  P E Kann; C Bradley; D S Lane
Journal:  Public Health Rep       Date:  1998 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.792

4.  Increased patient concern after false-positive mammograms: clinician documentation and subsequent ambulatory visits.

Authors:  M B Barton; S Moore; S Polk; E Shtatland; J G Elmore; S W Fletcher
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 5.128

5.  Mammography: influence of departmental practice and women's characteristics on patient satisfaction: comparison of six departments in Norway.

Authors:  K Løken; S Steine; E Laerum
Journal:  Qual Health Care       Date:  1998-09

6.  A breast cancer care report card. An assessment of performance and a pursuit of value.

Authors:  J G West; M L Sutherland; J S Link; D A Margileth
Journal:  West J Med       Date:  1997-04

7.  Auditing a breast MRI practice: performance measures for screening and diagnostic breast MRI.

Authors:  Bethany L Niell; Sara C Gavenonis; Tina Motazedi; Jessica Cott Chubiz; Elkan P Halpern; Elizabeth A Rafferty; Janie M Lee
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2014-04-29       Impact factor: 5.532

8.  Screening mammograms by community radiologists: variability in false-positive rates.

Authors:  Joann G Elmore; Diana L Miglioretti; Lisa M Reisch; Mary B Barton; William Kreuter; Cindy L Christiansen; Suzanne W Fletcher
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2002-09-18       Impact factor: 13.506

9.  Follow-Up of Abnormal Breast and Colorectal Cancer Screening by Race/Ethnicity.

Authors:  Anne Marie McCarthy; Jane J Kim; Elisabeth F Beaber; Yingye Zheng; Andrea Burnett-Hartman; Jessica Chubak; Nirupa R Ghai; Dale McLerran; Nancy Breen; Emily F Conant; Berta M Geller; Beverly B Green; Carrie N Klabunde; Stephen Inrig; Celette Sugg Skinner; Virginia P Quinn; Jennifer S Haas; Mitchell Schnall; Carolyn M Rutter; William E Barlow; Douglas A Corley; Katrina Armstrong; Chyke A Doubeni
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2016-04-28       Impact factor: 5.043

10.  Best ways to provide feedback to radiologists on mammography performance.

Authors:  Erin J Aiello Bowles; Berta M Geller
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 3.959

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.