AJR ARRS: Your Link to CME
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
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
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bowles, E. J. A.
Right arrow Articles by Geller, B. M.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bowles, E. J. A.
Right arrow Articles by Geller, B. M.
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?
Hotlight (NEW!)
Right arrow
What's Hotlight?
DOI:10.2214/AJR.08.2051
AJR 2009; 193:157-164
© American Roentgen Ray Society


Original Research

Best Ways to Provide Feedback to Radiologists on Mammography Performance

Erin J. Aiello Bowles1 and Berta M. Geller2

1 Group Health Center for Health Studies, 1730 Minor Ave, Ste. 1600, Seattle, WA 98101.
2 Office of Health Promotion Research, Department of Family Medicine, Department of Radiology, and the Vermont Cancer Center, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT.

OBJECTIVE. The Mammography Quality Standards Act of 1992 required a minimum performance audit of radiologists performing mammography. Since then, no studies have evaluated radiologists' perceptions of their audit reports, such as which performance measures are the most or least useful, or what the best formats are to present performance data.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. We conducted a qualitative study with focus groups and interviews of 25 radiologists currently practicing mammography. All radiologists practiced at one of three sites in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC). The discussion guide included open-ended questions to elicit opinions on the following subjects: the most useful performance outcome measures, examples of reports and formats that are easiest to understand (e.g., graphs or tables), thoughts about comparisons between individual-level and aggregate data, and ideas about additional performance measures they would find useful. All discussions were tape-recorded and transcribed. We developed a set of themes and used ethnographic software to qualitatively analyze and extract quotes from transcripts.

RESULTS. Radiologists thought that almost all performance measures were useful. They particularly liked seeing individual data presented in graphic form with a national benchmark or guideline for each performance measure clearly marked on the graph. They appreciated comparisons between their individual data and their peers' data (within their facility or state) and requested comparisons with national data (such as the BCSC). Many thought customizable, Web-based reports would be useful.

CONCLUSION. Radiologists think that most audit statistics are useful; however, presenting performance data graphically with clear benchmarks may make them easier to understand.

Keywords: audit reports • mammography performance • provider feedback • quality • radiology


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 © 2009 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.