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

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted 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 Blane, C. E. Articles by Helvie, M. A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Blane, C. E. Articles by Helvie, M. A. Social Bookmarking                      What's this? Hotlight (NEW!) What's Hotlight?

Costs of Achieving High Patient Compliance After Recall from Screening Mammography

¹ All authors: Department of Radiology, University of Michigan, 1500 E Medical Center Dr., Ann Arbor, MI 48109.

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of our study was to document the hidden costs in achieving high recall patient compliance from an off-site screening mammography program.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. This study was approved by our institutional review board. At our institution, no patient was placed in final BI-RADS assessment category 3, 4, or 5 without a diagnostic study. Each incomplete study, in addition to the formal report, was flagged on the day sheet, letters were sent to the referring physician and patient, and an incomplete computer code was added. Working from the day sheets, a clerk contacted the patient by telephone within 2 working days to schedule the diagnostic study. Diagnostic slots were purposely left open to accommodate these cases. An ongoing computer tickler file of incomplete codes provided a further check. A time study of clerical performance with recalled patients was measured prospectively for 100 consecutive cases.

RESULTS. For the years 2002-2004, 4,025 (13%) of 30,286 screening patients were recalled for diagnostic mammography. After an average of 2.2 telephone calls per patient, (3.64 minutes of clerical time), 3,977 of 4,005 patients returned for a diagnostic study. Forty-eight of 4,025 initially noncompliant patients received an average of six telephone calls (4.7 minutes) and a registered letter. One of the 28 initially noncompliant patients went on to biopsy that revealed a breast cancer. Patient compliance was 4,005 (99.5%) of 4,025. The additional cost for this program was $4,724 divided by 30,286 screening patients, or 16 cents per screening patient.

CONCLUSION. The radiology department assumed responsibility for contacting patients who needed recall for additional diagnostic imaging. Using strict documentation of the incomplete breast imaging evaluations, computer checks, clerical support, and prompt scheduling, we achieved 99.5% compliance. The additional cost was small, 16 cents per screening patient.

Keywords: breast cancer • mammography • screening

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