AJR Your Link to CME
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 Birdwell, R. L.
Right arrow Articles by Brenner, R. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Birdwell, R. L.
Right arrow Articles by Brenner, R. J.
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 172, 691-696, Copyright © 1999 by American Roentgen Ray Society


ARTICLES

Methods of compliance with Mammography Quality Standards Act regulations for tracking positive mammograms: survey results

RL Birdwell, DM Ikeda and RJ Brenner
Department of Radiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford University Medical Center, CA 94305-5105, USA.

OBJECTIVE: We sent a questionnaire to fellows of the Society of Breast Imaging to determine how breast imaging facilities comply with regulations mandated by the Mammography Quality Standards Act for tracking patients whose mammograms show positive findings. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: We surveyed the Society of Breast Imaging fellows to determine practice types, follow-up methodology, additional time and personnel required, and end points of radiologists' responsibility for follow-up of mammograms with positive findings. RESULTS: Forty-six (68%) of 68 surveyed practices responded, including 21 academic, 16 private, and nine mixed practices that averaged 15,761 mammograms a year (range, 300- 50,000). The 46 practices used computers (n = 30) or handwritten paper (n = 16) audits. Radiologists (n = 8), technologists (n = 6), other personnel (n = 10), or a combination (n = 22) tracked procedures and patients with abnormal mammographic results. Average time spent tracking was given as a few hours a week (n = 28), 2-4 hr a day (n = 11), and 40 hr a week (n = 5). The remaining two practices indicated that less than 1 hr per month was required (n = 1) or that they used two full-time data managers (n = 1). Accepted tracking end points included surgical biopsy (n = 30), referring physician recommended other management (n = 16), patient refused recommendation (n = 27), medical care transfer (n = 27), patient moved (n = 22), or patient lost to referring physician follow-up (n = 16). CONCLUSION: Among dedicated mammographers, the methodology in the task of tracking patients with positive findings on mammography varies. All methodologies described in responses to our survey involved considerable time and effort.
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
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 © 1999 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.