The FDA Enhancing Quality Using the Inspection Program (EQUIP) Breast Imaging Quality Initiative. 5-Year Clinical Experience.

IF 2 Q3 ONCOLOGY Journal of Breast Imaging Pub Date : 2024-07-30 DOI:10.1093/jbi/wbae034
Jeffrey R Hawley, Cynthia Ha, Linda Cai, Clayton R Taylor
{"title":"The FDA Enhancing Quality Using the Inspection Program (EQUIP) Breast Imaging Quality Initiative. 5-Year Clinical Experience.","authors":"Jeffrey R Hawley, Cynthia Ha, Linda Cai, Clayton R Taylor","doi":"10.1093/jbi/wbae034","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To evaluate the effects of the Enhancing Quality Using the Inspection Program (EQUIP) on quality control (QC) and quality assurance (QA) at an academic medical center.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>EQUIP audit logs for technologist image quality review as well as mammography unit QA and QC formed the basis for study data. One randomly selected screening mammogram was evaluated by the lead interpreting physician (LIP) using EQUIP criteria for each technologist for each imaging site worked, initially semiannually and then monthly. One randomly selected screening mammogram interpreted by each interpreting physician (IP) for each imaging site was evaluated on a semiannual basis. Quarterly, the LIP reviewed QA and QC logs for each mammography unit with deficiencies further investigated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 214 965 eligible screening mammograms performed, 5955 (2.8%) underwent EQUIP image quality review. Five were found to be technically inadequate (0.08%, 5955/214 965). The LIP identified 20 significant interpretive differences compared with the clinical interpretation resulting in 10 biopsies and 7 previously undetected malignancies, with supplemental cancer detection rate of 1.2/1000 cases reviewed. Two hundred ninety mammography unit QA/QC reviews identified 31 potential deficiencies, 29 of which were due to human documentation error (93.4%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>EQUIP review of both IP and technologists' quality and mammography unit QA/QC logs as performed identified few deficiencies. EQUIP policies should be evaluated at each institution and modified to best utilize resources and provide opportunities for meaningful quality improvement. Although not an EQUIP focus, supplemental cancer detection was observed as might be expected with double reading.</p>","PeriodicalId":43134,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Breast Imaging","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Breast Imaging","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jbi/wbae034","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate the effects of the Enhancing Quality Using the Inspection Program (EQUIP) on quality control (QC) and quality assurance (QA) at an academic medical center.

Methods: EQUIP audit logs for technologist image quality review as well as mammography unit QA and QC formed the basis for study data. One randomly selected screening mammogram was evaluated by the lead interpreting physician (LIP) using EQUIP criteria for each technologist for each imaging site worked, initially semiannually and then monthly. One randomly selected screening mammogram interpreted by each interpreting physician (IP) for each imaging site was evaluated on a semiannual basis. Quarterly, the LIP reviewed QA and QC logs for each mammography unit with deficiencies further investigated.

Results: Of 214 965 eligible screening mammograms performed, 5955 (2.8%) underwent EQUIP image quality review. Five were found to be technically inadequate (0.08%, 5955/214 965). The LIP identified 20 significant interpretive differences compared with the clinical interpretation resulting in 10 biopsies and 7 previously undetected malignancies, with supplemental cancer detection rate of 1.2/1000 cases reviewed. Two hundred ninety mammography unit QA/QC reviews identified 31 potential deficiencies, 29 of which were due to human documentation error (93.4%).

Conclusion: EQUIP review of both IP and technologists' quality and mammography unit QA/QC logs as performed identified few deficiencies. EQUIP policies should be evaluated at each institution and modified to best utilize resources and provide opportunities for meaningful quality improvement. Although not an EQUIP focus, supplemental cancer detection was observed as might be expected with double reading.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
美国食品药物管理局利用检查计划提高质量(EQUIP)乳腺成像质量计划。5 年临床经验。
目的评估学术医疗中心的 "利用检查项目提高质量"(EQUIP)对质量控制(QC)和质量保证(QA)的影响:方法: EQUIP 对技师图像质量审查以及乳腺 X 射线照相单位质量保证和质量控制的审核记录构成了研究数据的基础。由首席判读医师(LIP)根据 EQUIP 标准对每个影像中心的每位技师随机抽取一张筛查乳房 X 光照片进行评估,最初每半年评估一次,后来每月评估一次。每半年对每个造影点的每位口译医生(IP)口译的随机抽取的乳房 X 光筛查照片进行一次评估。每季度,LIP 审查每个乳腺造影单位的质量保证和质量控制日志,并进一步调查不足之处:在 214 965 例合格的乳腺 X 光筛查中,有 5955 例(2.8%)接受了 EQUIP 图像质量审查。其中 5 例(2.8%)被认定为技术缺陷(0.08%,5955/214965)。LIP 发现了 20 个与临床解释有重大差异的解释,导致 10 例活检和 7 例以前未发现的恶性肿瘤,补充癌症检出率为 1.2/1000。290 个乳腺放射摄影单位的质量保证/质量控制审查发现了 31 项潜在缺陷,其中 29 项是人为文件错误造成的(93.4%):结论:EQUIP 对 IP 和技师的质量以及乳腺 X 射线照相单位的 QA/QC 日志进行审查,发现的缺陷很少。各机构应对 EQUIP 政策进行评估和修改,以充分利用资源,提供有意义的质量改进机会。虽然不是 EQUIP 的重点,但也观察到了双读时可能出现的癌症检测补充。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
20.00%
发文量
81
期刊最新文献
Performance of Abbreviated Breast MRI in High-Risk Patients in a Tertiary Care Academic Medical Center. Developing a Career as a Clinician-Educator in Breast Imaging. Unknown Case: Non-mass Enhancement on Baseline MRI. Developing Financial Acumen as a Breast Imaging Radiologist. Methodological Considerations in Evaluating Breast Cancer Screening Studies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1