OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine to what extent radiology residents are being trained in quality assurance procedures for mammography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A telephone survey was conducted with 189 chief residents and 10 other senior residents from 199 of the 209 residency training programs in diagnostic radiology. RESULTS: Time spent on mammography rotations averaged 8 weeks. Only 10 residents (5%) were "very familiar" with the American College of Radiology (ACR) Mammography Accreditation Program; 72 (36%) were "not at all familiar" with it. Ninety-six (48%) knew that one technologist should be assigned quality control procedures. The majority did not know the recommended frequency for performing any of the five routine quality control procedures; only one knew the recommended frequencies for all five. Only twenty-seven (14%) knew the recommended maximum dose for a mammogram. Regarding biopsy yields and false-negative results: 92 residents (46%) sat in on outcome evaluation sessions; 54 (27%) played active roles, looking up and tabulating results; and 53 (27%) did not participate at all. CONCLUSION: Although time spent on mammography rotations has increased substantially, quality assurance issues are still largely neglected. It may not be reasonable for radiology residents to have detailed instruction in quality assurance procedures for mammography, but they should be more familiar with the general issues involved and the procedures intended to correct the problem of the variable quality of mammography in this country.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine to what extent radiology residents are being trained in quality assurance procedures for mammography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A telephone survey was conducted with 189 chief residents and 10 other senior residents from 199 of the 209 residency training programs in diagnostic radiology. RESULTS: Time spent on mammography rotations averaged 8 weeks. Only 10 residents (5%) were "very familiar" with the American College of Radiology (ACR) Mammography Accreditation Program; 72 (36%) were "not at all familiar" with it. Ninety-six (48%) knew that one technologist should be assigned quality control procedures. The majority did not know the recommended frequency for performing any of the five routine quality control procedures; only one knew the recommended frequencies for all five. Only twenty-seven (14%) knew the recommended maximum dose for a mammogram. Regarding biopsy yields and false-negative results: 92 residents (46%) sat in on outcome evaluation sessions; 54 (27%) played active roles, looking up and tabulating results; and 53 (27%) did not participate at all. CONCLUSION: Although time spent on mammography rotations has increased substantially, quality assurance issues are still largely neglected. It may not be reasonable for radiology residents to have detailed instruction in quality assurance procedures for mammography, but they should be more familiar with the general issues involved and the procedures intended to correct the problem of the variable quality of mammography in this country.
Authors: Joann G Elmore; Sara L Jackson; Linn Abraham; Diana L Miglioretti; Patricia A Carney; Berta M Geller; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Karla Kerlikowske; Tracy Onega; Robert D Rosenberg; Edward A Sickles; Diana S M Buist Journal: Radiology Date: 2009-10-28 Impact factor: 11.105