Physician workload in mammography

American Journal of Roentgenology

Volumn 190, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 526-532

  Smith Bindman, Rebecca ^a,b   Miglioretti, Diana L ^c,d   Rosenberg, Robert ^e   Reid, Robert J ^c   Taplin, Stephen H ^f   Geller, Berta M ^g   Kerlikowske, Karla ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c CENTER FOR HEALTH STUDIES   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^f NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

^g UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Mammography; Physician workforce; Volume

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CALCULATION; FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; HUMAN; MAMMOGRAPHY; PHYSICIAN; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIOLOGIST; RURAL AREA; STANDARD; WORKLOAD;

MAMMOGRAPHY; PHYSICIANS; RADIOLOGY; UNITED STATES; WORKLOAD;

EID: 38849209247     PISSN: 0361803X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2214/AJR.07.2500     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Mammography Quality Standards Act, 42 USC 102-539 (1992)
2. Institute of Medicine. Improving breast imaging quality standards. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine and National Research Council of The National Academies, 2005
3. Kan L, Olivotto IA, Warren Burhenne L, Sickles EA, Coldman AJ. Standardized abnormal interpretation and cancer detection ratios to assess reading volume and reader performance in a breast screening program. Radiology 2000; 215:563-567
4. Perry N. Interpretive skills in the National Health Service Breast Screening Programme: performance indicators and remedial measures. Semin Breast Dis 2003; 6:108-113
5. Kossoff M, Brothers L, Cawson J, Osborne J, Wylie E. BreastScreen Australia: how we handle variability in interpretive skills. Semin Breast Dis 2003; 6:123-127
6. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis, 4th ed. Brussels, Belgium: IARC Press, 2007; www.epgbc.org/documents.asp. Accessed October 24, 2007
7. Smith-Bindman R, Chu P, Miglioretti DL, et al. Physician predictors of mammographic accuracy. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005; 97:358-367
8. Barlow WE, Chi C, Carney PA, et al. Accuracy of screening mammography interpretation by characteristics of radiologists. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004; 96:1840-1850
9. Gur D, Sumkin JH, Hardesty LA, et al. Recall and detection rates in screening mammography. Cancer 2004; 100:1590-1594
10. Lewis RS, Sunshine JH, Bhargavan M. A portrait of breast imaging specialists and of the interpretation of mammography in the United States. AJR 2006; 187:1167; [web]W456-W468
11. Farria DM, Schmidt ME, Monsees BS, et al. Professional and economic factors affecting access to mammography: a crisis today, or tomorrow? Results from a national survey. Cancer 2005; 104:491-498
12. United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Requesters. Mammography: current nationwide capacity is adequate but access problems may exist in certain locations. Washington, DC: U.S. General Accountability Office, 2006; www.gao.gov/new.items/d06724.pdf. Accessed October 24, 2007
13. D'Orsi C, Tu SP, Nakano C, et al. Current realities of delivering mammography services in the community: do challenges with staffing and scheduling exist? Radiology 2005; 235:391-395
14. Ballard-Barbash R, Taplin SH, Yankaskas BC, et al. Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium: a national mammography screening and outcomes database. AJR 1997; 169:1001-1008
15. Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium Website. www54.imsweb.com. Accessed November 26, 2007
16. Sickles EA, Miglioretti DL, Ballard-Barbash R, et al. Performance benchmarks for diagnostic mammography. Radiology 2005; 235:775-790
17. Théberge I, Hébert-Croteau N, Langlois A, Major D, Brisson J. Volume of screening mammography and performance in the Quebec population-based Breast Cancer Screening Program. CMAJ 2005; 172:195-199