Diagnostic radiology peer review: A method inclusive of all interpreters of radiographic examinations regardless of specialty

Kenneth D. Hopper; Gene F. Rosetti; Robert B. Edmiston; John E. Madewell; Leta M. Beam; J. Richard Landis; Kenneth L. Miller; Joseph A. Ricci; Melanie A. McCauslin

doi:10.1148/radiology.180.2.2068327

Diagnostic radiology peer review: A method inclusive of all interpreters of radiographic examinations regardless of specialty

Kenneth D. Hopper, Gene F. Rosetti, Robert B. Edmiston, John E. Madewell, Leta M. Beam, J. Richard Landis, Kenneth L. Miller, Joseph A. Ricci, Melanie A. McCauslin

Research output: Contribution to journal › Review article › peer-review

23 Scopus citations

Abstract

A proposed method of assessing the quality of diagnostic radiographic examinations includes peer review designed to evaluate physicians, including nonradiologists, involved in the performance and interpretation of such examinations. A pilot project evaluated this system with randomly selected Pennsylvania Blue Shield data files of 10 providers billing for chest radiography interpretations during the second quarter of 1989. Of the 98 chest radiographs reviewed blindly, all inadequately marked ra-diographs and incomplete written reports were produced by nonradiologists. Technical quality of images obtained by radiologists did not significantly differ from that of images obtained by nonradiologists (P = .189). All five interpretive errors that could have seriously affected the patient's health care were produced by nonradiologists (P = .019). Four of these serious errors were made by providers billing for fewer than 25 radiographs. While administrative and time cost limitations are obvious, this method of peer review encompasses all physicians billing for a particular radiographic service, irrespective of specialty.

Original language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	557-561
Number of pages	5
Journal	Radiology
Volume	180
Issue number	2
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.180.2.2068327
State	Published - Aug 1991
Externally published	Yes

Keywords

Diagnostic radiology, observer performance
Quality assurance
Radiology and radiologists

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Access to Document

10.1148/radiology.180.2.2068327

Cite this

@article{5ba019c0bdaf47499a74c8b339b7b235,

title = "Diagnostic radiology peer review: A method inclusive of all interpreters of radiographic examinations regardless of specialty",

abstract = "A proposed method of assessing the quality of diagnostic radiographic examinations includes peer review designed to evaluate physicians, including nonradiologists, involved in the performance and interpretation of such examinations. A pilot project evaluated this system with randomly selected Pennsylvania Blue Shield data files of 10 providers billing for chest radiography interpretations during the second quarter of 1989. Of the 98 chest radiographs reviewed blindly, all inadequately marked ra-diographs and incomplete written reports were produced by nonradiologists. Technical quality of images obtained by radiologists did not significantly differ from that of images obtained by nonradiologists (P = .189). All five interpretive errors that could have seriously affected the patient's health care were produced by nonradiologists (P = .019). Four of these serious errors were made by providers billing for fewer than 25 radiographs. While administrative and time cost limitations are obvious, this method of peer review encompasses all physicians billing for a particular radiographic service, irrespective of specialty.",

keywords = "Diagnostic radiology, observer performance, Quality assurance, Radiology and radiologists",

author = "Hopper, {Kenneth D.} and Rosetti, {Gene F.} and Edmiston, {Robert B.} and Madewell, {John E.} and Beam, {Leta M.} and Landis, {J. Richard} and Miller, {Kenneth L.} and Ricci, {Joseph A.} and McCauslin, {Melanie A.}",

year = "1991",

month = aug,

doi = "10.1148/radiology.180.2.2068327",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "180",

pages = "557--561",

journal = "Radiology",

issn = "0033-8419",

publisher = "Radiological Society of North America Inc.",

number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Diagnostic radiology peer review

T2 - A method inclusive of all interpreters of radiographic examinations regardless of specialty

AU - Hopper, Kenneth D.

AU - Rosetti, Gene F.

AU - Edmiston, Robert B.

AU - Madewell, John E.

AU - Beam, Leta M.

AU - Landis, J. Richard

AU - Miller, Kenneth L.

AU - Ricci, Joseph A.

AU - McCauslin, Melanie A.

PY - 1991/8

Y1 - 1991/8

N2 - A proposed method of assessing the quality of diagnostic radiographic examinations includes peer review designed to evaluate physicians, including nonradiologists, involved in the performance and interpretation of such examinations. A pilot project evaluated this system with randomly selected Pennsylvania Blue Shield data files of 10 providers billing for chest radiography interpretations during the second quarter of 1989. Of the 98 chest radiographs reviewed blindly, all inadequately marked ra-diographs and incomplete written reports were produced by nonradiologists. Technical quality of images obtained by radiologists did not significantly differ from that of images obtained by nonradiologists (P = .189). All five interpretive errors that could have seriously affected the patient's health care were produced by nonradiologists (P = .019). Four of these serious errors were made by providers billing for fewer than 25 radiographs. While administrative and time cost limitations are obvious, this method of peer review encompasses all physicians billing for a particular radiographic service, irrespective of specialty.

AB - A proposed method of assessing the quality of diagnostic radiographic examinations includes peer review designed to evaluate physicians, including nonradiologists, involved in the performance and interpretation of such examinations. A pilot project evaluated this system with randomly selected Pennsylvania Blue Shield data files of 10 providers billing for chest radiography interpretations during the second quarter of 1989. Of the 98 chest radiographs reviewed blindly, all inadequately marked ra-diographs and incomplete written reports were produced by nonradiologists. Technical quality of images obtained by radiologists did not significantly differ from that of images obtained by nonradiologists (P = .189). All five interpretive errors that could have seriously affected the patient's health care were produced by nonradiologists (P = .019). Four of these serious errors were made by providers billing for fewer than 25 radiographs. While administrative and time cost limitations are obvious, this method of peer review encompasses all physicians billing for a particular radiographic service, irrespective of specialty.

KW - Diagnostic radiology, observer performance

KW - Quality assurance

KW - Radiology and radiologists

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0025769884&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0025769884&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1148/radiology.180.2.2068327

DO - 10.1148/radiology.180.2.2068327

M3 - Review article

C2 - 2068327

AN - SCOPUS:0025769884

SN - 0033-8419

VL - 180

SP - 557

EP - 561

JO - Radiology

JF - Radiology

IS - 2

ER -

Diagnostic radiology peer review: A method inclusive of all interpreters of radiographic examinations regardless of specialty

Abstract

Keywords

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this