Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE:The purposes of our study were to analyze screening mammography data submitted to the National Mammography Database (NMD) since its inception to confirm data collection feasibility, to draw parallels to data from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC), and to examine trends over time. We also retrospectively evaluated practice-level variation in terms of practice type, practice setting, census region, and annual volume. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:Data from 90 mammography facilities in the NMD registry were analyzed. The registry receives mammography data collected as part of standard clinical practice, including self-reported demographic information, clinical findings, screening mammography interpretation, and biopsy results. Outcome metrics calculated were cancer detection rate, recall rate, and positive predictive values for biopsy recommended (PPV2) and biopsy performed (PPV3). RESULTS:The NMD successfully collected and analyzed data for 3,181,437 screening mammograms performed between January 2008 and December 2012. Mean values for outcomes were cancer detection rate of 3.43 per 1000 (95% CI, 3.2-3.7), recall rate of 10% (95% CI, 9.3-10.7%), PPV2 of 18.5% (95% CI, 16.7-20.2%), and PPV3 of 29.2% (95% CI, 26.2-32.3%). No statistically significant difference was seen in performance measurements on the basis of practice type, practice setting, census region, or annual volume. NMD performance measurements parallel those reported by the BCSC. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The NMD has become the fastest growing mammography registry in the United States, providing nationwide performance metrics and permitting comparison with published benchmarks. Our study shows the feasibility of using the NMD to audit mammography facilities and to provide current, ongoing benchmark data.

Practice quality improvement (PQI) is a required component of the American Board of Radiology (ABR) Maintenance of Certification (MOC) cycle, with the goal to "improve the quality of health care through diplomate-initiated learning and quality improvement." The essential requirements of PQI projects include relevance to one's practice, achievability in one's clinical setting, results suited for repeat measurements during an ABR MOC cycle, and reasonable expectation to result in quality improvement (QI). PQI projects can be performed by a group or an individual or as part of a participating institution. Given the interdisciplinary nature of radiology, teamwork is critical to ensure patient safety and the success of PQI projects. Additionally, successful QI requires considerable investment of time and resources, coordination, organizational support, and individual engagement. Group PQI projects offer many advantages, especially in larger practices and for processes that cross organizational boundaries, whereas individual projects may be preferred in small practices or for focused projects. In addition to the three-phase "plan, do, study, act" model advocated by the ABR, there are several other improvement models, which are based on continuous data collection and rapid simultaneous testing of multiple interventions. When properly planned, supported, and executed, group PQI projects can improve the value and viability of a radiology practice.

Preoperative sentinel node localization (SNL) using a subareolar injection of radiotracer technetium-99m-sulfur colloid (Tc(99m)SC) is associated with significant pain. Lidocaine use during SNL is not widely adopted partly due to a concern that it can obscure sentinel node identification and reduce its diagnostic accuracy. We prospectively identified women with a biopsy-proven infiltrating breast cancer who were awaiting a SNL. The women completed the McGill pain questionnaire, Visual Analog Scale, and Wong-Baker FACES Pain Rating Scale prior to and following SNL. We identified a retrospective cohort of women with similar demographic and tumor characteristics who did not receive lidocaine before SNL. We compared sentinel lymph node identification rates in the two cohorts. We used Wilcoxon rank sum tests to compare continuous measures and Fisher's exact test for categorical measures. Between January 2011 to July 2012, 110 women consented, and 105 were eligible for and received lidocaine prior to Tc(99m)SC injection. The post-lidocaine identification rate of SNL was 95 % with Tc(99m)SC, and 100 % with the addition of intraoperative methylene blue dye/saline. Pain range prior to and following the SNL was unchanged (P = 0.703). We identified 187 women from 2005 to 2009 who did not receive lidocaine during preoperative SNL. There was no significant difference in the success rate of SNL, with or without lidocaine (P = 0.194). The administration of lidocaine during SNL prevents pain related to isotope injection while maintaining the success rate. We have changed our practice at our center to incorporate the use of lidocaine during all SNL.

Radiologists in the United States are required to complete the Practice Quality Improvement (PQI) program as part of their Maintenance of Certification by the ABR. The Institute for Healthcare Improvement's (IHI) Model for Improvement (MFI) offers an alternative to the 3-phase approach currently advocated by the ABR. The MFI implicitly assumes that many interventions will need to be tested and refined for any meaningful project, and provides a project management approach that enables rapid assessment and improvement of performance. By collecting data continuously, rather than simply before and after interventions, more interventions can be tested simultaneously and projects can progress more rapidly. In this article, we describe the ABR's 3-phase approach, and introduce the MFI and how it can be employed to affect positive changes. Using a radiology case study, we demonstrate how one can utilize the MFI to enable rapid quality improvement.

OBJECTIVE:The purpose of this study was to characterize the performance of the Neuroradiology Second Opinion Consultation Service (NSOCS) at our institution to establish the rate, causes, and implications of requests for repeat imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:We queried 11,753 complete reports of all NSOCS studies for calendar year 2010 for the words "repeat" and "follow-up." We categorized study limitations described in these reports into poor image quality, missing or inadequate MR sequences or CT reformats, lack of IV contrast administration where otherwise deemed appropriate, an "other" category for miscellaneous items, and a "clarification" category for indeterminate findings or recommendations for more advanced protocols. The corresponding available electronic medical records were reviewed. An estimated financial analysis of the NSOCS was additionally performed. RESULTS:Repeat imaging studies were recommended in 1.5% of cases. In 0.3% of all cases, a subsequent repeat examination was documented in the electronic medical records. Study limitations were most commonly due to poor image quality (77.5%), followed by missing or inadequate MR sequences or CT reformats (20.3%). The additional estimated cost of repeat imaging was calculated at $14,019.34, with an overall per-patient cost of $2.12 for the service. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Reviewing outside studies generates a very low rate of requests for and performance of repeat studies, and is not a major additional health care expense.

OBJECTIVE:In this article, we describe some of the cognitive and system-based sources of detection and interpretation errors in diagnostic radiology and discuss potential approaches to help reduce misdiagnoses. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Every radiologist worries about missing a diagnosis or giving a false-positive reading. The retrospective error rate among radiologic examinations is approximately 30%, with real-time errors in daily radiology practice averaging 3-5%. Nearly 75% of all medical malpractice claims against radiologists are related to diagnostic errors. As medical reimbursement trends downward, radiologists attempt to compensate by undertaking additional responsibilities to increase productivity. The increased workload, rising quality expectations, cognitive biases, and poor system factors all contribute to diagnostic errors in radiology. Diagnostic errors are underrecognized and underappreciated in radiology practice. This is due to the inability to obtain reliable national estimates of the impact, the difficulty in evaluating effectiveness of potential interventions, and the poor response to systemwide solutions. Most of our clinical work is executed through type 1 processes to minimize cost, anxiety, and delay; however, type 1 processes are also vulnerable to errors. Instead of trying to completely eliminate cognitive shortcuts that serve us well most of the time, becoming aware of common biases and using metacognitive strategies to mitigate the effects have the potential to create sustainable improvement in diagnostic errors.