AJR Join ARRS
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 Deitch, C. H.
Right arrow Articles by Cochran, S. T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Deitch, C. H.
Right arrow Articles by Cochran, S. T.
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?

American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol 163, 1245-1254, Copyright © 1994 by American Roentgen Ray Society


ARTICLES

Quality assessment and improvement: what radiologists do and think

CH Deitch, WC Chan, JH Sunshine, MD Zinninger, PN Cascade and ST Cochran
Research Department, American College of Radiology, Reston, VA 22091.

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 assessment (QA) and continuous quality improvement (CQI)/total quality management (TQM) in hospitals and in offices; and second, to ascertain whether differences in size, type, and location among hospitals and nonhospital radiology offices affect the QA and CQI/TQM activities of radiologists. We analyzed data from a national survey conducted by the American College of Radiology (ACR) in 1993. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Questionnaires about QA and CQI/TQM activities and attitudes were mailed to 216 hospital-affiliated diagnostic radiology group practices using a sample selected from the ACR master list of radiology practices in the United States. The response rate was 90%. A stratified random sample ensured representation of different geographic regions, various group sizes, and both academic and nonacademic groups. Responses were weighted so that our data show what answers about hospitals would have been if (i) the survey had been answered by all hospital radiology departments in the United States (except for those few staffed by solo practitioners or nonradiologists) and (ii) our questions about nonhospital offices had been answered by all radiology groups in the United States (except those few having no hospital activity). RESULTS. The majority (86%) of hospital radiology departments report having a program to monitor and evaluate physicians' performances. Fifty-one percent collect incorrect diagnoses by specific radiologist. Twenty-eight percent collect some of their QA data through computerized information systems. We found some statistically significant differences by hospital size and location, with larger hospitals and urban hospitals being more likely to engage in some QA activities. Multivariate analyses, once controlled for hospital size and location, found no significant differences in QA activity between university and community hospitals or between hospitals with and without a residency program. QA and CQI programs were less common in offices than in hospitals. With the exception of mammographic interpretations, most practices did not monitor and evaluate physicians' performances in the office setting. Respondents representing 58% of hospital radiology departments thought that QA and CQI contributed to improvement in patient care. Only 19% of radiology practices answered that CQI has been of cost benefit to their organization. CONCLUSION. Most radiology practices engage in a variety of QA and CQI activities in hospitals. However, this is less true in offices, in which radiologists have more discretion, and radiologists remain skeptical about the usefulness of CQI.
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
RadioGraphicsHome page
J. B. Kruskal
Editorial: Quality Initiatives in Radiology: Historical Perspectives for an Emerging Field
RadioGraphics, January 1, 2008; 28(1): 3 - 5.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
J. B. Kruskal, C. S. Yam, J. Sosna, D. T. Hallett, Y. J. Milliman, and H. Y. Kressel
Implementation of online radiology quality assurance reporting system for performance improvement: initial evaluation.
Radiology, November 1, 2006; 241(2): 518 - 527.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
S. Ondategui-Parra, J. G. Bhagwat, K. H. Zou, A. Gogate, L. A. Intriere, P. Kelly, S. E. Seltzer, and P. R. Ros
Practice Management Performance Indicators in Academic Radiology Departments
Radiology, December 1, 2004; 233(3): 716 - 722.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1994 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.