Best ways to provide feedback to radiologists on mammography performance

American Journal of Roentgenology

Volumn 193, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 157-164

  Aiello Bowles, Erin J ^a   Geller, Berta M ^b  

^a CENTER FOR HEALTH STUDIES   (United States)

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

Author keywords

Audit reports; Mammography performance; Provider feedback; Quality; Radiology

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPUTER PROGRAM; ETHNOGRAPHY; FEEDBACK SYSTEM; HEALTH PERSONNEL ATTITUDE; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INTERNET; INTERVIEW; JOB PERFORMANCE; MAMMOGRAPHY; MEDICAL AUDIT; OPEN ENDED QUESTIONNAIRE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; QUALITY CONTROL; RADIOLOGIST; TAPE RECORDER; PHYSICIAN; PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE; RADIOLOGY; STANDARD; STATISTICS; UNITED STATES;

BENCHMARKING; MAMMOGRAPHY; MEDICAL AUDIT; PHYSICIANS; PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE; RADIOLOGY; WASHINGTON;

EID: 67650284718     PISSN: 0361803X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2214/AJR.08.2051     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Barlow WE, Lehman CD, Zheng Y, et al. Performance of diagnostic mammography for women with signs or symptoms of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002; 94:1151-1159 (Pubitemid 34919052)
2. Rosenberg RD, Yankaskas BC, Abraham LA, et al. Performance benchmarks for screening mammography. Radiology 2006; 241:55-66
3. Sickles EA, Miglioretti DL, Ballard-Barbash R, et al. Performance benchmarks for diagnostic mammography. Radiology 2005; 235:775-790
4. 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
5. Perry NM. Interpretive skills in the National Health Service Breast Screening Programme: performance indicators and remedial measures. Semin Breast Disease 2003; 6:108-113 (Pubitemid 39127684)
6. van der Horst F, Hendriks J, Rijken H, Holland R. Breast cancer screening in the Netherlands: audit and training of radiologists. Semin Breast Disease 2003; 6:114-122 (Pubitemid 39127685)
7. Mammography Quality Standards Act of 1992. Mammography facilities requirement for accrediting bodies, and quality standards and certifying requirements: interim rules (21 CFR 900). December 21, 1993; 58:57558-57572
8. Linver MN, Osuch JR, Brenner RJ, Smith RA. The mammography audit: a primer for the mammography quality standards act (MQSA). AJR 1995; 165:19-25
9. Linver M, Newman J. MQSA: the final rule. Radiol Technol 1999; 70:338-353 [quiz 354-336]
10. 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 (Pubitemid 27406892)
11. Bradley EH, Holmboe ES, Mattera JA, Roumanis SA, Radford MJ, Krumholz HM. Data feedback efforts in quality improvement: lessons learned from US hospitals. Qual Saf Health Care 2004; 13:26-31 (Pubitemid 38223596)
12. Jamtvedt G, Young JM, Kristoffersen DT, O'Brien MA, Oxman AD. Does telling people what they have been doing change what they do? A systematic review of the effects of audit and feedback. Qual Saf Health Care 2006; 15:433-436 (Pubitemid 46025156)
13. Jamtvedt G, Young JM, Kristoffersen DT, O'Brien MA, Oxman AD. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006; CD000259
14. Rowan MS, Hogg W, Martin C, Vilis E. Family physicians' reactions to performance assessment feedback. Can Fam Physician 2006; 52:1570-1571 (Pubitemid 46021189)
15. Adcock KA. Initiative to improve mammogram interpretation. Permanente Journal 2004; 8:12-18
16. Kiefe CI, Allison JJ, Williams OD, Person SD, Weaver MT, Weissman NW. Improving quality improvement using achievable benchmarks for physician feedback: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2001; 285:2871-2879 (Pubitemid 32537351)
17. Nass S, Balls J. Improving breast imaging quality standards. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, 2005
18. American College of Radiology (ACR). ACR BIRADS-mammography. In: ACR Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: breast imaging atlas. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 2003
19. Yankaskas BC, Cleveland RJ, Schell MJ, Kozar R. Association of recall rates with sensitivity and positive predictive values of screening mammography. AJR 2001; 177:543-549 (Pubitemid 32802335)
20. Veloski J, Boex JR, Grasberger MJ, Evans A, Wolfson DB. Systematic review of the literature on assessment, feedback and physicians' clinical performance: BEME guide no. 7. Med Teach 2006; 28:117-128 (Pubitemid 43771960)
21. Sickles EA. Auditing your breast imaging practice: an evidence-based approach. Semin Roentgenol 2007; 42:211-217 (Pubitemid 47494504)
22. Hadjianastassiou VG, Karadaglis D, Gavalas M. A comparison between different formats of educational feedback to junior doctors: a prospective pilot intervention study. J R Coll Surg Edinb 2001; 46:354-357 (Pubitemid 33133362)