Breast screening technologists: When is a difficult case truly difficult and for whom?

Progress in Biomedical Optics and Imaging - Proceedings of SPIE

Volumn 5749, Issue , 2005, Pages 557-565

  Scott, Hazel J ^a   Gale, Alastair G ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF DERBY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Breast Screening; Case Difficulty; Expertise; Performance; PERFORMS

Indexed keywords

DIAGNOSIS; TECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING;

BREAST SCREENING; CASE DIFFICULTY; EXPERTISE; PERFORMANCE; PERFORMS;

MEDICAL IMAGING;

EID: 24644501227     PISSN: 16057422     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1117/12.596892     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (6)

1. Patnick, J. (Ed.). Annual review 2003: Saving women for 15 years, NHS Cancer Screening Programmes, 2003, Citigate Communications, London
2. Gale A.G. & Walker G.E. Design for performance: quality assessment in a national breast screening programme. In E. Lovesay (Ed.) Ergonomics - design for performance 1991, Taylor & Francis, London.
3. Cowley H. and Gale A.G.. Minimising human error in the detection of breast cancer. In: S. A. Robertson (Ed). Contemporary Ergonomics 1996, Taylor and Francis, London.
4. Cowley, H.C. and Gale, A.G.. Breast cancer screening: comparison of radiologists performance in a self-assessment scheme and in actual breast screening. In: medical Imaging 1999: Image perception and performance. E.A. Krupinski, (Ed.). Proceedings of SPIE Vol. 3663, 157-168.
5. Gale A.G.: 2003 PERFORMS - a self assessment scheme for radiologists in breast screening. In Seminars in Breast Disease: Improving and monitoring mammographic interpretative skills, 6(3), 148-152
6. Simpson, W., Neilson, F., & Kelly, P. (1996). Descriptive Terms for Mammographic Abnormalities: Observer Variation in Application. Clinical Radiology,51,709-713.