American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol 167, 377-379, Copyright © 1996 by American Roentgen Ray Society

ARTICLES

Physicians' opinions on the delivery of mammographic screening services: immediate interpretation versus double reading

PJ Slanetz, RH Moore, CA Hulka, EF Halpern, D Habunek, GJ Whitman, KA McCarthy, DA Hall and DB Kopans
Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston 02114, USA.

OBJECTIVE. Mammographic services are delivered in many ways. Emphasis has been placed on providing women with immediate reports of their screening mammograms. We believe that double reading of mammograms is more important than an immediate report. We sought to determine physicians' attitudes toward this issue and if education affects their opinions. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Questionnaires were mailed to 1000 physicians in Massachusetts who were randomly selected from 16,000 members of the state medical society. The questionnaire had four sections, of which two were pertinent to this subject. The first section collected general information on the physician's practice and experience. The second section described two common delivery systems for mammographic screening services and asked physicians to choose the delivery system that would most benefit their patients. RESULTS. Of the 1000 physicians, 294 returned the questionnaire, giving a response rate of 29%. Of these, 16 physicians returned blank surveys, leaving 278 for analysis. Two hundred forty-nine (90%) valued off-site, delayed interpretation of mammographic screening for their patients over on- site reading by a single radiologist if an off-site, delayed reading made double reading possible. CONCLUSION. An off-site, double-reading delivery system for mammographic screening services is preferred by many physicians for their patients once they are educated as to the benefits of double reading.
CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				D. Georgian-Smith, R. H. Moore, E. Halpern, E. D. Yeh, E. A. Rafferty, H. A. D'Alessandro, M. Staffa, D. A. Hall, K. A. McCarthy, and D. B. Kopans Blinded Comparison of Computer-Aided Detection with Human Second Reading in Screening Mammography Am. J. Roentgenol., November 1, 2007; 189(5): 1135 - 1141. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. V. Ghate, M. S. Soo, J. A. Baker, R. Walsh, E. I. Gimenez, and E. L. Rosen Comparison of Recall and Cancer Detection Rates for Immediate versus Batch Interpretation of Screening Mammograms Radiology, April 1, 2005; 235(1): 31 - 35. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				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]

				S. Raza, M. P. Rosen, K. Chorny, T. S. Mehta, C. A. Hulka, and J. K. Baum Patient Expectations and Costs of Immediate Reporting of Screening Mammography: Talk Isn't Cheap Am. J. Roentgenol., September 1, 2001; 177(3): 579 - 583. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. A. Soto, F. Múnera, C. Morales, J. E. Lopera, D. Holguín, O. Guarín, G. Castrillón, A. Sanabria, and G. García Focal Arterial Injuries of the Proximal Extremities: Helical CT Arteriography as the Initial Method of Diagnosis Radiology, January 1, 2001; 218(1): 188 - 194. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				R. A. Novelline, J. T. Rhea, P. M. Rao, and J. L. Stuk Helical CT in Emergency Radiology Radiology, November 1, 1999; 213(2): 321 - 339. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				J. M. Tonita, J. P. Hillis, and C.-H. Lim Medical Radiologic Technologist Review: Effects on a Population-based Breast Cancer Screening Program Radiology, May 1, 1999; 211(2): 529 - 533. [Abstract] [Full Text]