HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Kruskal, J. B. Articles by Kressel, H. Y. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Kruskal, J. B. Articles by Kressel, H. Y.

Implementation of Online Radiology Quality Assurance Reporting System for Performance Improvement: Initial Evaluation¹

¹ From the Department of Radiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, 1 Deaconess Rd, Boston, MA 02215. From the 2005 RSNA Annual Meeting. Received August 29, 2005; revision requested October 13; revision received December 5; accepted January 6, 2006; final version accepted January 9. Address correspondence to J.B.K. (e-mail: jkruskal{at}bidmc.harvard.edu).

Purpose: To evaluate an online system developed and implemented for reporting and managing quality assurance (QA) events occurring in a radiology department.

Materials and Methods: This HIPAA-compliant study had institutional review board approval; informed consent was not required. Using repeated plan-do-study-act cycles, a radiology quality management team applied a 10-step process to implement an online reporting system. The system permits remote submission of cases by staff members. The number of weekly submissions to the system over a 9-month period was evaluated and compared with that for the preceding 6 months by using the Mann-Whitney test. Sources and nature of data, actions initiated, and final outcomes were also analyzed. Recorded data included forum of discussion, dimension of care, action items, monitoring of follow-up and compliance, and notification status.

Results: During the first 9 months of implementation, 605 cases were submitted (mean, 21.4 cases per week), a significant increase (P < .005) compared with the preceding 6 months (mean, 3.2 cases per week). Cases, which were submitted by residents (121 cases [20.0%]), fellows (94 cases [15.5%]), faculty members (319 cases [52.7%]), or technologists (54 cases [8.9%]), reported technical (33.1%) or administrative (8.0%) issues. The 329 clinical cases (54.4%) included 60 errors in communication (18.2%), 67 errors in interpretation (20.4%), 78 diagnostic delays (23.7%), 99 missed diagnoses (30.1%), and 54 procedural complications (16.4%); some cases were in more than one category. Twenty-three cases (3.8%) resulted in submission-related QA projects, and 69 cases (11.4%) resulted in individuals or sections of the hospital undergoing additional training.

Conclusion: A secure online QA reporting system promotes reporting of QA events and serves as a database for identifying and managing trends, initiating performance improvement projects, and providing feedback to staff members who submit cases.

© RSNA, 2006