Quality assessment and improvement: what radiologists do and think.

Deitch, Cynthia; Chan, William; Sunshine, Jonathan H.; Zinninger, M.; Cascade, Philip N.; Cochran, S T

doi:10.2214/ajr.163.5.7976910

Cited by 25 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Es stellt sich die Frage, ob in einer universitären Institution, die primär nach optimalen und innovativen diagnostischen und interventionellen Verfahren strebt [6], ein solches Verfahren einen nicht zu rechtfertigenden zusätzlichen Zeitaufwand darstellt, der eine Ressourcenverschwendung in Bezug auf das knappe Zeitbudget der hier Beschäftigten darstellt. Darüber hinaus muss die Frage gestellt werden, ob z.…”

Section: Diskussionunclassified

Aufbau eines Qualitätsmanagementsystems nach DIN EN ISO 9001:2000 in einer radiologischen Universitätsklinik

Adam

Lorenzen²,

Krupski³

et al. 2003

Rofo Fortschr Geb Rontgenstr Neuen Bildgeb Verfahr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Diskussionunclassified

Aufbau eines Qualitätsmanagementsystems nach DIN EN ISO 9001:2000 in einer radiologischen Universitätsklinik

Adam

Lorenzen²,

Krupski³

et al. 2003

Rofo Fortschr Geb Rontgenstr Neuen Bildgeb Verfahr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A traditional approach to this has been through performance parameters—similar to those used in financial management [2–4]. Overall, when assessing the performance of a radiology department six indicators are most commonly used: productivity, reporting time, ease of access, finance and satisfaction (of both clinicians and patients) [5].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What influences clinician’s satisfaction with radiology services?

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AimPACS and teleradiology systems have led to marked changes in the traditional relationship between referring clinicians and hospital radiology departments. The aim of this study was to assess which factors influence clinicians’ satisfaction with modern radiology services.MethodAn Internet-based survey questionnaire was sent to all referring clinicians within a large hospital network.ResultsFifty-eight percent of 316 clinicians responded to the survey. Seventy percent felt PACS installation had improved reporting time, and 56% felt it had improved working patterns for medical staff. Approachability of radiologists was the only factor significantly associated with increased satisfaction (p = 8 × 10–8). A number of factors were found to be significantly associated with the perceived value of radiology reports, and these are discussed. An increase in clinicians’ confidence in their own radiological skills was not associated with a decrease in the value they placed on radiology reports.ConclusionThe only factor significantly associated with improved clinician satisfaction was the availability of an approachable radiology service. Availability of PACS did not appear to undermine the value placed on radiology reports.

show abstract

“…[1][2][3][4] QA interest and investigation in radiology appeared around the same time. 5,6 The American College of Radiology (ACR) has taken an active role in addressing quality issues, including practice guidelines, technical standards, appropriateness criteria for use of imaging examinations, and accreditation programs. Mandates by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO) are hospital-wide guidelines that include performance assessment.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Radiologist Interpretive Performance Using Blinded Reads by Multiple External Readers

Ryan¹,

Semelka²,

Molina³

et al. 2010

Investigative Radiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The results of our study demonstrate a wide range of interpretation, with wider ranges observed in more complex cases and with vague clinical complaints. Comparison to the primary reader required the use of aggregate analysis and an agreement percentage cutoff to minimize bias and the limitations of this type of study. An intensive evaluation of radiologist performance such as this could be considered in various settings such as a quality assurance program, intense scrutiny of an individual radiologist whether competency is in question, or for medicolegal purpose to ascertain standard of care.

show abstract

Quality assessment and improvement: what radiologists do and think.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE.The main objectives of the study were as follows: first, to study the nature and extent of radiologists' Involvement In and their attitudes toward quality

Cited by 25 publications

References 8 publications

Aufbau eines Qualitätsmanagementsystems nach DIN EN ISO 9001:2000 in einer radiologischen Universitätsklinik

Aufbau eines Qualitätsmanagementsystems nach DIN EN ISO 9001:2000 in einer radiologischen Universitätsklinik

What influences clinician’s satisfaction with radiology services?

Evaluation of Radiologist Interpretive Performance Using Blinded Reads by Multiple External Readers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About