Clinical governance improves the quality of nuclear medicine reporting

Nuclear Medicine Communications

Volumn 29, Issue 11, 2008, Pages 999-1001

  Peters, A Michael ^a   Bomanji, Jamshed ^a   Ell, Peter J ^a   Gordon, Isky ^a   Hilson, Andrew J W ^a   Murrain, Carolyn ^a  

^a ROYAL SUSSEX COUNTY HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Audit; Clinical governance; Nuclear medicine

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONSENSUS; MEDICAL AUDIT; MEDICAL DOCUMENTATION; NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE; NUCLEAR MEDICINE; UNITED KINGDOM;

HOSPITALS, PRIVATE; MEDICAL AUDIT; NUCLEAR MEDICINE; RESEARCH DESIGN; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL; TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT;

EID: 55149104580     PISSN: 01433636     EISSN: 14735628     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/MNM.0b013e32830ebd01     Document Type: Article

References (11)

1. Peters AM, Bomanji J, Costa DC, Ell PJ, Gordon I, Henderson BL, et al. Clinical audit in nuclear medicine. Nucl Med Commun 2004; 25:97-103.
2. Goddard P, Leslie A, Jones A, Wakely C, Kabala J. Error in radiology. Br J Radiol 2001; 74:949-951.
3. Fultz PJ, Jacobs CV, Hall WJ, Gottlieb R, Rubens D, Totterman SM, et al. Ovarian cancer: comparison of observer performance for four methods of interpreting CT scans. Radiology 1999; 212:401-410.
4. Wakely CJ, Jones AM, Kabala JE, Prince D, Goddard PR. Audit of the value of double reading magnetic resonance imaging films. Br J Radiol 1995; 68:358-360.
5. Bechtold RE, Chen MY, Ott DJ, Zagoria RJ, Scharling ES, Wolfman NT, et al. Interpretation of abdominal CT: analysis of errors and their causes. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1997; 21:681-685.
6. Markus JB, Somes S, O'Malley BP, Stevenson GW. Double-contrast barium enema studies: effect of multiple reading on perception error. Radiology 1990; 175:155-156.
7. Brealey S, Westwood M. Are you reading what we are reading? The effect of who interprets medical images on estimates of diagnostic test accuracy in systematic reviews. Br J Radiol 2007; 80:674-677.
8. Borgstede JP, Lewis RS, Bhargavan M, Sunshine JH. RADPEER quality assurance program: a multifacility study of interpretive disagreement rates. J Am Coll Radiol 2004; 1:59-65.
9. Ruchman RB, Jaeger J, Wiggins EF, Seinfeld S, Thakral V, Bolla S, et al. Preliminary radiology resident interpretations versus final attending radiologist interpretations and the impact on patient care in a community hospital. Am J Roentgenol 2007; 189:523-526.
10. Gordon PB, Borugian MJ, Warren Burhenne LJ. A true screening environment for review of interval breast cancers: pilot study to reduce bias. Radiology 2007; 245:411-415.
11. Altman DG. Practical statistics for medical research. London: Chapman and Hall; 1991.