HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Ondategui-Parra, S. Articles by Ros, P. R. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Ondategui-Parra, S. Articles by Ros, P. R. Social Bookmarking                      What's this?

Survey of the Use of Quality Indicators in Academic Radiology Departments

¹ Hospital Administration, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02120.
² Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 1620 Tremont St., Boston, MA 02120.

OBJECTIVE. Our purpose was to determine whether quality in academic radiology departments in the United States is systematically measured through indicators and evaluated by preset standards.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. We performed a cross-sectional study using a validated survey sent to Society of Chairmen of Academic Radiology Departments (SCARD) members and studied type, frequency of monitoring, and use of preset standards for evaluation of quality indicators. Statistical methods were descriptive summary statistics, chi-square test, analysis of variance, and Spearman's rank correlation test.

RESULTS. The response rate was 42% (55/132). Most responding hospitals were from the Northeast (20/55, 36.4%) and Midwest (18/55, 32.7%). About 58% (32/55) of the responding hospitals had more than 500 beds in operation; 50.9% (28/55) of the radiology departments performed 200,000-400,000 examinations per year. Among the 80% of departments (44/55) that monitored patient satisfaction, only 49.1% and 45.5% assessed referring physician and employee satisfaction, respectively. The most frequently monitored customer satisfaction indicator, patient satisfaction, was monitored quarterly or less frequently by 70.5% (31/44) of departments; about 45.5% (20/44) had preset standards for this indicator. MRI and CT were monitored for patient appointment access by 80% (44/55) and 72.7% (40/55) of departments, respectively; 59.1% (26/44) and 62.5% (25/40) of departments applied preset standards to these indicators, respectively. The reporting-time indicator monitored most frequently was report turnaround time (45/55, 81.8%). None of the differences in mean numbers and monitoring frequencies of the indicators and the use of preset standards to evaluate them by region and size of departments were significant (p >0.05).

CONCLUSION. Use of quality management indicators, particularly customer satisfaction indicators, is not a fully standardized and established process for academic radiology departments in the United States.

Keywords: academic radiology • radiology practice

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