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 Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Reynolds, H. E.
Right arrow Articles by Hawes, D. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Reynolds, H. E.
Right arrow Articles by Hawes, D. R.
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 168, 507-510, Copyright © 1997 by American Roentgen Ray Society


ARTICLES

Fixed-facility workplace screening mammography

HE Reynolds, GN Larkin, VP Jackson and DR Hawes
Department of Radiology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis 46202, USA.

OBJECTIVE: Potential barriers to compliance with screening mammography guidelines include the cost and inconvenience involved with undergoing the procedure. Workplace screening with mobile mammography is one possible approach to the convenience barrier. However, fixed-facility workplace screening is a viable alternative for any company with a large workforce in one location. This paper describes our initial experience with one such fixed facility. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The facility was a cooperative venture by a large pharmaceutical company and an academic radiology department to provide convenient, no-cost (to the patient) screening mammography to employees, dependents, and retirees more than 40 years old. The pharmaceutical company built the facility within its corporate headquarters and the academic radiology department provided the equipment and personnel. The company was billed a fixed cost per examination. RESULTS: In the first 22 months of operation, 4210 (of 4559 scheduled) screening mammograms were obtained. The mean age of the population was 53 years old. Ninety percent of the screening mammograms were interpreted as negative or benign; 10% required additional workup. Of the screened population, 62 biopsies were recommended and 60 were performed. Of these, 42 were benign and 18 malignant. The cancer detection rate was 4.3 per 1000 (0.43%). At the time of diagnosis, six patients were stage 0, 10 patients were stage I, one patient was stage II, and one patient was stage III. Eleven of the 18 patients had minimal cancers. Of the patients who completed a satisfaction survey, 97% percent expressed a high degree of satisfaction with the screening process and stated they would use the facility in the future. CONCLUSION: A fixed facility for workplace screening mammography is a viable way to provide nearly barrier-free access to high-quality mammography. Patient acceptance is high.
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?





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1997 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.