Formative assessment based on an audit and feedback improves nuchal translucency ultrasound image quality

Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine

Volumn 32, Issue 9, 2013, Pages 1601-1605

  Chalouhi, Gihad E ^a   Salomon, Laurent J ^a,b   Fontanges, Marianne ^b   Althuser, Marc ^b   Haddad, Georges ^b   Scemama, Olivier ^c   Chabot, Jean Michel ^c   Duyme, Michel ^d   Fries, Nicolas ^b  

^a UNIVERSITÉ PARIS DESCARTES   (France)

^b l'alimentation et l'Environnement   (France)

^c Ancien Délégué Général de la Fédération de l'Hospitalisation Privée   (France)

^d UNIV MONTPELLIER   (France)

Author keywords

Audit; Down syndrome; Formative assessment; Nuchal translucency; Quality control

Indexed keywords

QUALITY CONTROL; TRANSPARENCY; ULTRASONICS;

AUDIT; DOWN SYNDROME; FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT; INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS; NO FEEDBACKS; NUCHAL TRANSLUCENCY; SONOGRAPHERS; ULTRASOUND IMAGES;

MANAGEMENT;

DOUBLE BLIND PROCEDURE; ECHOGRAPHY; FEEDBACK SYSTEM; FEMALE; FRANCE; HUMAN; INTERNET; MALE; MEDICAL AUDIT; MEDICAL EDUCATION; NECK; NUCHAL TRANSLUCENCY MEASUREMENT; OBSERVER VARIATION; PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT; PROCEDURES; PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE; REPRODUCIBILITY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; ARTICLE; DOWN SYNDROME; FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT; METHODOLOGY; QUALITY CONTROL; STATISTICS;

DOUBLE-BLIND METHOD; EDUCATION, MEDICAL, CONTINUING; EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL; FEEDBACK; FEMALE; FRANCE; HUMANS; INTERNET; MALE; MEDICAL AUDIT; NECK; NUCHAL TRANSLUCENCY MEASUREMENT; OBSERVER VARIATION; PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

AUDIT; DOWN SYNDROME; FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT; NUCHAL TRANSLUCENCY; QUALITY CONTROL;

EID: 84883425358     PISSN: 02784297     EISSN: 15509613     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.7863/ultra.32.9.1601     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS (eds). To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 1999.
2. Thomson O'Brien MA, Oxman AD, Davis DA, Haynes RB, Freemantle N, Harvey EL. Audit and feedback versus alternative strategies: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2000; 2:CD000260.
3. 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.
4. Nicolaides KH. Screening for chromosomal defects. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2003; 21:313-321.
5. Snijders RJ, Noble P, Sebire N, Souka A, Nicolaides KH. UK multicentre project on assessment of risk of trisomy 21 by maternal age and fetal nuchal-translucency thickness at 10-14 weeks of gestation. Fetal Medicine Foundation First Trimester Screening Group. Lancet 1998; 352:343-346.
6. Tabor A, Madsen M, Obel EB, Bang J, Obel EB, Norgaard-Pedersen B. Randomised controlled trial of genetic amniocentesis in 4606 low-risk women. Lancet 1986; 1:1287-1293.
7. Snijders RJ, Thom EA, Zachary JM, et al. First trimester trisomy screening: nuchal translucency measurement training and quality assurance to correct and unify technique. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol2002; 19:353-359.
8. Mersy E, Smits LJ, van Winden LA, et al. Noninvasive detection of fetal trisomy 21: systematic review and report of quality and outcomes of diagnostic accuracy studies performed between 1997 and 2012. Hum Reprod Update 2013; 19:318-329.
9. Malone FD, D'Alton ME; Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. Firsttrimester sonographic screening for Down syndrome. Obstet Gynecol 2003; 102:1066-1079.
10. Malone FD. Nuchal translucency-based Down syndrome screening: barriers to implementation. Semin Perinatol 2005; 29:272-276.
11. Fetal Medicine Foundation. Down's syndrome screening at 11-14 weeks. Fetal Medicine Foundation website; November 15, 2011. http://www.fetalmedicine. com.
12. Grudzinskas JG, Ward RHT (eds). Recommendations arising from the 32nd Study Group. In: Screening for Down Syndrome in the First Trimester. London, England: RCOG Press; 1997:353-356.
13. D'Alton M, Cleary-Goldman J. First and second trimester evaluation of risk for fetal aneuploidy: the secondary outcomes of the FASTER Trial. Semin Perinatol 2005; 29:240-246.
14. Evans MI, Krantz DA, Hallahan TW, Sherwin J. Impact of nuchal translucency credentialing by the FMF, the NTQR or both on screening distributions and performance. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2012; 39:181-184.
15. D'Alton M, Cleary-Goldman J. Education and quality review for nuchal translucency ultrasound. Semin Perinatol 2005; 29:380-385.
16. Fries N, Althuser M, Fontanges M, et al. Quality control of an image-scoring method for nuchal translucency ultrasonography. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007; 196:272.e1-272.e5.
17. Salomon LJ, Bernard JP, Perl B, et al. An internet-based tool for quality assessment of fetal ultrasound examination [abstract]. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2007; 30(suppl):532.
18. Salomon LJ, Bernard JP, Bouhanna P, Perl B, Hamon H, Ville Y. Quality control programs for routine ultrasound examination: experience using an internet-based tool (www.sfape.com) [abstract]. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008; 32(suppl):340.
19. Herman A, Dreazen E, Maymon R, Tovbin Y, Bukovsky I, Weinraub Z. Implementation of nuchal translucency image-scoring method during ongoing audit. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1999; 14:388-392.
20. Nuchal Translucency Quality Review Program. NT quality review: operations and guidelines. Nuchal Translucency Quality Review Program website. https://www.ntqr.org./MyFTP/SM/Documents/Operations/NTQROperationalGuidelines. pdf. Accessed February 13, 2013.
21. Berwick DM. The science of improvement. JAMA 2008; 299:1182-1184.