The Expanded Mammography Audit: Its Value in Measuring and Improving Your Performance

Seminars in Breast Disease

Volumn 8, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 35-42

  Linver, Michael N ^a  

^a X Ray Associates of New Mexico   (United States)

Author keywords

audit; breast imaging; mammography; outcomes; performance; standards

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST BIOPSY; BREAST CANCER; BREAST DISEASE; BREAST SURGERY; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER INVASION; CANCER STAGING; DATA ANALYSIS; DEMOGRAPHY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; EPIDEMIOLOGICAL DATA; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; JOB PERFORMANCE; LABORATORY TEST; LYMPH NODE METASTASIS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MEDICAL AUDIT; MEDICAL ETHICS; MEDICOLEGAL ASPECT; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT CARE; PHYSICAL EXAMINATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROCESS DEVELOPMENT; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RADIODIAGNOSIS; RADIOLOGIST; SCREENING; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STANDARDIZATION;

EID: 33746348300     PISSN: 10924450     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1053/j.sembd.2006.03.011     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. 21 CFA Part 16 and 900: Mammography quality standards; final rule. Federal register 62 (1997), Government printing office, Washington, DC 55851-55994 Oct 28
2. In: Nass S., and Ball J. (Eds). Improving Breast Imaging Quality Standards (2005), Institute of Medicine, The National Academies Press, Washington DC
3. Tabar L., Fagerberg G., Duffy S.W., et al. Update of the Swedish two-county program of mammographic screening for breast cancer. Radiol Clin North Am 30 (1992) 187-210
4. Linver M.N., Osuch J.R., Brenner R.J., et al. The mammography audit. a primer for the mammography quality standards act (MQSA). Am J Roentgenol 165 (1995) 19-25
5. Sickles E.A. Quality assurance. How to audit your own mammography practice. Radiol Clin North Am 30 (1992) 265-275
6. American College of Radiology (ACR). ACR BI-RADS. Mammography, in Breast Imaging Reporting and Data S, Breast Imaging Atlas. (ed 4) (2003), American College of Radiology, Reston, VA
7. Sohlich R.E., Sickles E.A., Burnside E.S., et al. Interpreting data from audits when screening and diagnostic mammography outcomes are combined. Am J Roentgenol 178 (2002) 681-686
8. Bassett L.W., Hendrick R.E., Bassford T.L., et al. Clinical Practice Guideline No. 13. AHCPR Publication No. 95-0632. Quality Determinants of Mammography (1994), Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Rockville, MD October
9. Duffy S.W., Tabar L., Vitak B., et al. The relative contributions of screen-detected in situ and invasive breast carcinomas in reducing mortality from the disease. Eur J Cancer 39 (2003) 1755-1760
10. Yankaskas B.C., Taplin S.H., Ichikawa L., et al. Association between mammography timing and measures of screening performance in the United States. Radiology 234 (2005) 363-373
11. Sickles E.A., Miglioretti D.L., Ballard-Barbash R., et al. Performance benchmarks for diagnostic mammography. Radiology 235 (2005) 775-790
12. Rosenberg RD, Yankaskas BC, Abraham L, et al: Benchmarks for screening mammography. Radiology (in press)
13. Dee K.E., and Sickles E.A. Medical audit of diagnostic mammography examinations. Comparison with screening outcomes obtained concurrently. Am J Roentgenol 176 (2001) 729-733
14. Adcock K.A. Initiative to improve mammogram interpretation. The Permanente Journal 8 (2004) 12-18
15. American Medical Association (AMA). A compendium of state peer review immunity laws (1988), AMA, Chicago, IL
16. American Medical Association. Report of AMA reference committee G, substitute resolution 722, "Medical peer review outside hospital settings" (1992), AMA, Chicago, IL
17. Linver M.N., Rosenberg R.D., and Smith R.A. Mammography outcome analysis- potential panacea or Pandora's box?. (commentary). AJR Am J Roentgenol 167 (1996) 373-375