Quality assurance: The missing link

Radiology

Volumn 238, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 13-15

  Reiner, Bruce I ^a,b,c   Siegel, Eliot L ^a,b   Siddiqui, Khan M ^a   Musk, Amy E ^a,b  

^a VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER ASSISTED RADIOGRAPHY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; IMAGE QUALITY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; RADIATION DOSE; REVIEW;

CLINICAL TRIALS; HUMANS; QUALITY ASSURANCE, HEALTH CARE; RADIOLOGY; RADIOLOGY DEPARTMENT, HOSPITAL;

EID: 29444453962     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2381050357     Document Type: Review

References (14)

1. Reiner BI, Siegel EL, Flagle C, Hooper FJ, Cox RE, Scanlon M. Effect of filmless imaging on the utilization of radiologic services. Radiology 2000;215:163-167.
2. Mayo-Smith W, Arruda W, Ridlen M, Pezzullo J III, Noto R. Financial impact of performing plain radiographs in an outpatient setting: revenue loser or loss leader? (abstr). In: Radiological Society of North America scientific assembly and annual meeting program. Oak Brook, III: Radiological Society of North America, 2003;510.
3. Siegel E, Reiner B. Work flow redesign: the key to success when using PACS. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;178:563-566.
4. Lipoti J, Orrison WW Jr. Benefits of quality assurance for diagnostic x-ray (abstr). In: Radiological Society of North America scientific assembly and annual meeting program. Oak Brook, III: Radiological Society of North America, 2003;599.
5. Brenner DJ, Elliston CD. Estimated radiation risks potentially associated with full-body CT scanning. Radiology 2004;232:735-738.
6. Cohen BL. Cancer risk from low-level radiation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;179:1137-1143.
7. Berrington de Gonzalez A, Darby S. Risk of cancer from diagnostic x-rays: estimates for the UK and 14 other countries. Lancet 2004;363:345-351.
8. Reiner BI, Siegel EL, Hooper FJ, et al. Multi-institutional analysis of computed and direct radiography. I. Technologist productivity. Radiology 2005;236:413-419.
9. Reiner BI, Salkever D, Siegel EL, Hooper FJ, Siddiqui KM, Musk A. Multi-institutional analysis of computed and direct radiography. II. Economic analysis. Radiology 2005;236:420-426.
10. Kuntz EF. DRG cost-per-case management: cost-cutting drive tags imaging. Mod Healthc 1984;14:150, 152.
11. Siegel EL, Diaconis JN, Pomerantz S, Allman R, Briscoe B. Making filmless radiology work. J Digit Imaging 1995;8:151-155.
12. Vetter S, Strecker EP. Clinical aspects of quality criteria in digital radiography. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2001;94:33-36.
13. Zoetelief J. Review of acceptability criteria for x-ray systems relevant for digital radiography. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2001;94:59-64.
14. United States Food and Drug Administration. Quality mammography standards: final rule. Federal Register 1997;62:55852-55994.