(1)
Department of Radiology, UMDNJ-New Jersey Medical School, Newark, NJ, USA
Abstract
The issue of quality is a radiology imperative. Some of you may not know that there are almost 75 various organizations in Radiology, which I call “balkanization” in the extreme. Nonetheless each year about 45 societies meet to discuss a particular topic, At a recent meeting quality was the subject. There the participants were placed in three large committees for the purpose of providing recommendations on metrics for quality. 78 proposals were proffered by the committees which were further distilled into 48 separate notions that could each frame a metric. Bear in mind that results of this meeting of minds should not be regarded as a document which stands on its own as authoritative. Really what it represents is a set of preliminary statements to engender focus on matters of quality. Whether these proposals will be implemented by the American College of Radiology or any other group depends upon a consensus about their pertinence and validity which frankly requires widespread rank and file Radiologist impact about their merits or lack thereof.
The issue of quality is a radiology imperative. Some of you may not know that there are almost 75 various organizations in Radiology, which I call “balkanization” in the extreme. Nonetheless each year about 45 societies meet to discuss a particular topic, At a recent meeting quality was the subject. There the participants were placed in three large committees for the purpose of providing recommendations on metrics for quality. 78 proposals were proffered by the committees which were further distilled into 48 separate notions that could each frame a metric. Bear in mind that results of this meeting of minds should not be regarded as a document which stands on its own as authoritative. Really what it represents is a set of preliminary statements to engender focus on matters of quality. Whether these proposals will be implemented by the American College of Radiology or any other group depends upon a consensus about their pertinence and validity which frankly requires widespread rank and file Radiologist impact about their merits or lack thereof.
The 48 different recommendations were placed into four groups (1) Access and Appropriateness, (2) Patient Safety, (3) Radiology Report, and (4) Satisfaction Surveys. In this discussion, I will not go through all of them. Instead I will discuss a few, providing some comment reflecting my opinion with either approbation or criticism. As I pointed out in the previous essay, appropriateness is an admirable concept but without committed participation by referring physicians it will be difficult to implement any such measures related to algorithms for the choice and sequencing of imaging examination- no matter how noble and farsighted they may appear to be in concept.