A workstation-integrated peer review quality assurance program: pilot studyReportar como inadecuado




A workstation-integrated peer review quality assurance program: pilot study - Descarga este documento en PDF. Documentación en PDF para descargar gratis. Disponible también para leer online.

BMC Medical Imaging

, 13:19

First Online: 04 July 2013Received: 20 August 2012Accepted: 26 June 2013

Abstract

BackgroundThe surrogate indicator of radiological excellence that has become accepted is consistency of assessments between radiologists, and the technique that has become the standard for evaluating concordance is peer review. This study describes the results of a workstation-integrated peer review program in a busy outpatient radiology practice.

MethodsWorkstation-based peer review was performed using the software program Intelerad Peer Review. Cases for review were randomly chosen from those being actively reported. If an appropriate prior study was available, and if the reviewing radiologist and the original interpreting radiologist had not exceeded review targets, the case was scored using the modified RADPEER system.

ResultsThere were 2,241 cases randomly assigned for peer review. Of selected cases, 1,705 76% were interpreted. Reviewing radiologists agreed with prior reports in 99.1% of assessments. Positive feedback score 0 was given in three cases 0.2% and concordance scores of 0 to 2 was assigned in 99.4%, similar to reported rates of 97.0% to 99.8%. Clinically significant discrepancies scores of 3 or 4 were identified in 10 cases 0.6%. Eighty-eight percent of reviewed radiologists found the reviews worthwhile, 79% found scores appropriate, and 65% felt feedback was appropriate. Two-thirds of radiologists found case rounds discussing significant discrepancies to be valuable.

ConclusionsThe workstation-based computerized peer review process used in this pilot project was seamlessly incorporated into the normal workday and met most criteria for an ideal peer review system. Clinically significant discrepancies were identified in 0.6% of cases, similar to published outcomes using the RADPEER system. Reviewed radiologists felt the process was worthwhile.

KeywordsDiagnostic errors Diagnostic imaging Peer review Practice performance evaluation Quality assurance RADPEER AbbreviationsACRAmerican College of Radiology

CIConfidence interval

MICMedical Imaging Consultants

PACSPicture archiving and communication system

QAQuality assurance

RISRadiology information system.

Download fulltext PDF



Autor: Margaret M O’Keeffe - Todd M Davis - Kerry Siminoski

Fuente: https://link.springer.com/



DESCARGAR PDF




Documentos relacionados