Web-based mammography audit feedback

American Journal of Roentgenology

Volumn 198, Issue 6, 2012, Pages

  Geller, Berta M ^a   Ichikawa, Laura ^b   Miglioretti, Diana L ^b,c   Eastman, David ^b,d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT   (United States)

^b GROUP HEALTH RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^d CENTER FOR HEALTH RESEARCH   (United States)

Author keywords

Feedback audit; Mammography; Quality improvement; Radiologist performance

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CANCER REGISTRY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; DISEASE SURVEILLANCE; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAMMOGRAPHY; ONLINE ANALYSIS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PHYSICIAN ATTITUDE; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROCESS DEVELOPMENT; PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; QUALITY CONTROL; RADIOLOGIST; SCREENING TEST; SELF REPORT; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; WEB BROWSER;

BENCHMARKING; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CLINICAL AUDIT; FEEDBACK; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTERNET; MAMMOGRAPHY; PHYSICIAN'S PRACTICE PATTERNS; PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE; RADIOLOGY; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84861602548     PISSN: 0361803X     EISSN: 15463141     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2214/AJR.11.7971     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Rosenberg RD, Yankaskas BC, Abraham LA, et al. Performance benchmarks for screening mammography. Radiology 2006; 241:55-66 (Pubitemid 44433335)
2. Sickles EA, Miglioretti DL, Ballard-Barbash R, et al. Performance benchmarks for diagnostic mammography. Radiology 2005; 235:775-790 (Pubitemid 40695870)
3. 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)
4. Elmore JG, Jackson SL, Abraham L, et al. Variability in interpretive performance at screening mammography and radiologists' characteristics associated with accuracy. Radiology 2009; 253: 641-651
5. 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
6. van der Horst F, Hendriks J, Rijken H, et al. Breast cancer screening in The Netherlands: audit and training of radiologists. Semin Breast Dis 2003; 6:114-122 (Pubitemid 39127685)
7. Perry NM. Interpretive skills in the National Health Service Breast Screening Programme: performance indicators and remedial measures. Semin Breast Dis 2003; 6:108-113 (Pubitemid 39127684)
8. [No authors listed]. Quality mammography standards: FDA-final rule. Fed Regist 1997; 62:55,852-55,994
9. Nass S, Ball J, eds.; Committee on Improving Mammography Quality Standards; National Cancer Policy Board; Institute of Medicine and National Research Council of the National Academies. Improving breast imaging quality standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2005
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. Elmore JG, Aiello Bowles EJ, Geller B, et al. Radiologists'attitudes and use of mammography audit reports. Acad Radiol 2010; 17:752-760
12. D'Orsi CJ, Mendelson, EB, Ikeda DM, et al.: Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: ACR BI-RADS-breast imaging atlas. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 2003
13. U.S. Health and Human Services Website. Research-based Web design & usability guidelines. www.usability.gov/guidelines/guidelines-book.pdf. Published 2006. Accessed February 8, 2012
14. Jamtvedt G, Young JM, Kristoffersen DT, et al. 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)
15. 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; 2: CD000259
16. Veloski J, Boex J, Grasberger M, 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)
17. Aiello Bowles EJ, Geller BM. Best ways to provide feedback to radiologists on mammography performance. AJR 2009; 193:157-164
18. Bassett LW, Hendrick RE, Bassford TL, Quality determinants of mammography: AHCPR clinical practice guidelines-no. 13. Rockville, MD: Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, 1994
19. National Cancer Institute Website. Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. http://breastscreening.cancer.gov/. Updated January 27, 2012. Accessed February 8, 2012
20. Siegal EC, Angelakis EJ, Hartman A. Can peer review contribute to earlier detection of breast cancer? A quality initiative to learn from false-negative mammograms. Breast J 2008; 14:330-334
21. Glynn C, Farria D, Monsees B, et al. Effect of transition to digital mammography on clinical outcomes. Radiology 2011; 260:664-670
22. Jackson SL, Cook AJ, Miglioretti DL, et al. Are radiologists' goals for mammography accuracy consistent with published recommendations? Acad Radiol 2012; 19:289-295
23. Cook AJ, Elmore JG, Zhu W, et al. Radiologists'ability to accurately estimate and compare their own interpretative mammography performance with their peers. AJR 2012 (in press)