AJR Get Involved! Join ARRS Today
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bassett, L. W.
Right arrow Articles by Hendrick, R. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bassett, L. W.
Right arrow Articles by Hendrick, R. E.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Hotlight (NEW!)
Right arrow
What's Hotlight?

American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol 160, 271-274, Copyright © 1993 by American Roentgen Ray Society

ARTICLES

Quality assurance in mammography: status of residency education

LW Bassett, JP Lubisich, JP Bresch, NW Jessop and RE Hendrick
Iris Cantor Center for Breast Imaging, UCLA Medical Center.

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.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 RadiologyHome page
L. W. Bassett, B. S. Monsees, R. A. Smith, L. Wang, P. Hooshi, D. M. Farria, J. W. Sayre, S. A. Feig, and V. P. Jackson
Survey of Radiology Residents: Breast Imaging Training and Attitudes
Radiology, June 1, 2003; 227(3): 862 - 869.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1993 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.