Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Quality--a radiology imperative: interpretation accuracy and pertinence.
J Am Coll Radiol. 2007 Mar; 4(3):162-5.JA

Abstract

Physicians as a group have neither consistently defined nor systematically measured the quality of medical practice. To referring clinicians and patients, a good radiologist is one who is accessible, recommends appropriate imaging studies, and provides timely consultation and reports with high interpretation accuracy. For determining the interpretation accuracy of cases with pathologic or surgical proof, the author proposes tracking data on positive predictive value, disease detection rates, and abnormal interpretation rates for individual radiologists. For imaging studies with no pathologic proof or adequate clinical follow-up, the author proposes measuring the concordance and discordance of the interpretations within a peer group. The monitoring of interpretation accuracy can be achieved through periodic imaging, pathologic correlation, regular peer review of randomly selected cases, or subscription to the ACR's RADPEER system. Challenges facing the implementation of an effective peer-review system include physician time, subjectivity in assessing discordant interpretations, lengthy and equivocal interpretations, and the potential misassignment of false-positive interpretations.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Department of Radiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7510, USA. jlee@med.unc.edu

Pub Type(s)

Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

17412256

Citation

Lee, Joseph K T.. "Quality--a Radiology Imperative: Interpretation Accuracy and Pertinence." Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR, vol. 4, no. 3, 2007, pp. 162-5.
Lee JK. Quality--a radiology imperative: interpretation accuracy and pertinence. J Am Coll Radiol. 2007;4(3):162-5.
Lee, J. K. (2007). Quality--a radiology imperative: interpretation accuracy and pertinence. Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR, 4(3), 162-5.
Lee JK. Quality--a Radiology Imperative: Interpretation Accuracy and Pertinence. J Am Coll Radiol. 2007;4(3):162-5. PubMed PMID: 17412256.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Quality--a radiology imperative: interpretation accuracy and pertinence. A1 - Lee,Joseph K T, PY - 2006/08/16/received PY - 2007/4/7/pubmed PY - 2007/9/12/medline PY - 2007/4/7/entrez SP - 162 EP - 5 JF - Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR JO - J Am Coll Radiol VL - 4 IS - 3 N2 - Physicians as a group have neither consistently defined nor systematically measured the quality of medical practice. To referring clinicians and patients, a good radiologist is one who is accessible, recommends appropriate imaging studies, and provides timely consultation and reports with high interpretation accuracy. For determining the interpretation accuracy of cases with pathologic or surgical proof, the author proposes tracking data on positive predictive value, disease detection rates, and abnormal interpretation rates for individual radiologists. For imaging studies with no pathologic proof or adequate clinical follow-up, the author proposes measuring the concordance and discordance of the interpretations within a peer group. The monitoring of interpretation accuracy can be achieved through periodic imaging, pathologic correlation, regular peer review of randomly selected cases, or subscription to the ACR's RADPEER system. Challenges facing the implementation of an effective peer-review system include physician time, subjectivity in assessing discordant interpretations, lengthy and equivocal interpretations, and the potential misassignment of false-positive interpretations. SN - 1558-349X UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/17412256/Quality__a_radiology_imperative:_interpretation_accuracy_and_pertinence_ L2 - https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1546-1440(06)00545-X DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -