Performance results for a workstation-integrated radiology peer review quality assurance program: Table 1
| Autor: | Margaret M. O'Keeffe, Kerry Siminoski, Todd M. Davis |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2016 |
| Předmět: |
medicine.medical_specialty
Scoring system Quality management business.industry Health Policy education Public Health Environmental and Occupational Health Psychological intervention General Medicine Missed diagnosis Performance results 030218 nuclear medicine & medical imaging Score distribution 03 medical and health sciences 0302 clinical medicine Peer assessment 030220 oncology & carcinogenesis medicine Radiology business Quality assurance |
| Zdroj: | International Journal for Quality in Health Care. 28:294-298 |
| ISSN: | 1464-3677 1353-4505 |
| DOI: | 10.1093/intqhc/mzw017 |
| Popis: | Objective To assess review completion rates, RADPEER score distribution, and sources of disagreement when using a workstation-integrated radiology peer review program, and to evaluate radiologist perceptions of the program. Design Retrospective review of prospectively collected data. Setting Large private outpatient radiology practice. Participants Radiologists ( n = 66) with a mean of 16.0 (standard deviation, 9.2) years of experience. Interventions Prior studies and reports of cases being actively reported were randomly selected for peer review using the RADPEER scoring system (a 4-point scale, with a score of 1 indicating agreement and scores of 2–4 indicating increasing levels of disagreement). Main Outcome Measures Assigned peer review completion rates, review scores, sources of disagreement and radiologist survey responses. Results Of 31 293 assigned cases, 29 044 (92.8%; 95% CI 92.5–93.1%) were reviewed. Discrepant scores (score = 2, 3 or 4) were given in 0.69% (95% CI 0.60–0.79%) of cases and clinically significant discrepancy (score = 3 or 4) was assigned in 0.42% (95% CI 0.35–0.50%). The most common cause of disagreement was missed diagnosis (75.2%; 95% CI 66.8–82.1%). By anonymous survey, 94% of radiologists felt that peer review was worthwhile, 90% reported that the scores they received were appropriate and 78% felt that the received feedback was valuable. Conclusion Workstation-based peer review can increase completion rates and levels of radiologist acceptance while producing RADPEER scores similar to those previously reported. This approach may be one way to increase radiologist engagement in peer review quality assurance. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|