Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The quality movement or making radiology fun again

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Emergency Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Quality can be seen as the link between what we do as radiologists and patient health. The radiology quality movement represents an opportunity for radiologists to have more direct influence on patient health, including the quality domains of safety, effectiveness, patient centeredness, timeliness, efficiency, and equitability. Focusing on quality allows emergency radiologists to extend outside of the confines of the reading room, thereby enhancing a rewarding and clinically relevant practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson M (2000) To err is human: building a safer health system. National Academy Press, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  2. Davis K, Stremikis K, Squires D, Schoen C (2014) Mirror, mirror on the wall: how the performance of the US health care system compares internationally. Commonwealth Fund, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  3. The Dartmouth Institute (2014) The Dartmouth atlas of healthcare. The Trustees of Dartmouth College, Lebanon, http://www.dartmouthatlas.org/. Accessed 11/12/2014

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bhargavan M, Sunshine JH (2005) Utilization of radiology services in the United States: levels and trends in modalities, regions, and populations. Radiology 234:824–832

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Hurtado MP, Swift EK, Corrigan JM (2001) Crossing the quality chasm: a new health care system for the 21st century. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C

    Google Scholar 

  6. Kalra MK, Rizzo SMR, Novelline RA (2005) Reducing radiation dose in emergency computed tomography with automatic exposure control techniques. Emerg Radiol 11:267–274

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Lukasiewicz A, Bhargavan-Chatfield M, Coombs L et al (2014) Radiation dose index of renal colic protocol CT studies in the United States: a report from the American College of Radiology data registry. Radiology 271:445–451

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Baker SR (2003) Medical errors, quality, and safety: emergency radiology’s urgent matter. Emerg Radiol 10:69–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Stiell IG, Greenberg GH, McKnight RD et al (1992) Decision rules for the use of radiography in acute ankle injuries. Refinement and prospective validation. JAMA 269:1127–1132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Stiell IG, Clement CM, Grimshaw J et al (2009) Implementation of the Canadian C-Spine Rule: prospective 12 centre cluster randomized trial. BMJ 339:1–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Blackmore CC, Mecklenburg RS, Kaplan GS (2011) Effectiveness of clinical decision support in controlling inappropriate imaging. JACR 8:19–25

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Sistrom CL, Dang PA, Weilburg JB, Dreyer KJ, Rosenthal DI, Thrall JH (2009) Effect of computerized order entry with integrated decision support on the growth of outpatient procedure volumes: seven-year time series analysis. Radiology 251(1):147–155

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Vartanians VM, Sistrom CL, Weilburg JB, Rosenthal DI, Thrall JH (2010) Increasing the appropriateness of outpatient imaging: effects of a barrier to ordering low-yield examinations. Radiology 255:842–849

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Bender LC, Linnau KF, Meier EN, Anzai Y, Gunn ML (2012) Interrater agreement in the evaluation of discrepant imaging findings with the Radpeer system. AJR 199:1320–1327

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Abujudeh H, Pyatt RS, Bruno MA et al (2014) Radpeer peer review: relevance, use, concerns, challenges, and direction forward. JACR 11:899–904

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Le AH, Licurse A, Catanzano TM (2007) Interpretation of head CT scans in the emergency department by fellows versus general staff non-neuroradiologists: a closer look at the effectiveness of a quality control program. Emerg Radiol 14:311–316

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Fryback DG, Thornbury JR (1991) The efficacy of diagnostic imaging. Med Decis Making 11:88–94

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Blackmore CC (2007) Defining quality in radiology. JACR 4:217–223

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hui JS, Kramer DJ, Blackmore CC, Hashimoto BE, Coy DL (2014) A quality improvement initiative to reduce unnecessary follow-up for imaging for adnexal lesions. JACR 11:373–377

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Anon (2014) HCAHPS Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Bethesda, http://www.hcahpsonline.org/home.aspx. Accessed 10/22/2014

    Google Scholar 

  21. Sedlic A, Chingkoe CM, Tso DK, Galea-Soler S, Nicolaou S (2013) Rapid imaging protocol in trauma: a whole-body dual-source CT scan. Emerg Radiol 20:401–408

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Consumer Reports (2014) How we rate hospitals. Consumers Union. http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/2012/10/how-we-rate-hospitals/index.htm. Accessed 11/12/2014.

  23. Agrawal A, Agrawal A, Pandit M, Kalyanpur A (2011) Systematic survey of discrepancy rates in an international teleradiology service. Emerg Radiol 18:23–29

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The author receives royalties from Springer Publishing for the Evidence-Based Imaging text series.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Health Services Research, Department of Radiology, Virginia Mason Health System, Mailstop: R3-324, 1202 Terry Ave. #324, Seattle, WA, 98101, USA

    C. Craig Blackmore

Authors
  1. C. Craig Blackmore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. Craig Blackmore.

Additional information

This paper was presented at the American Society of Emergency Radiology 2014 Annual Meeting Founders’ Lecture.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Blackmore, C.C. The quality movement or making radiology fun again. Emerg Radiol 22, 395–399 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10140-015-1298-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10140-015-1298-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation