Journal of the American College of Radiology
Volume 7, Issue 3 , Pages 216-221 , March 2010

Flying in the Plane You Service: Patient-Centered Radiology

  • Stephen J. Swensen, MD, MMM

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author and reprints: Stephen J. Swensen, MD, Mayo Clinic, Department of Radiology, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN 55905
    • ,
  • C. Daniel Johnson, MD, MMM

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona

References 

  1. Beam CA, Layde PM, Sullivan DC. Variability in the interpretation of screening mammograms by US radiologists. Arch Intern Med. 1996;156:209–213
  2. American College of Radiology. Practice guidelines and technical standards. http://www.acr.org/SecondaryMainMenuCategories/quality_safety/guidelines.aspxAccessed August 8, 2009
  3. de Brantes F. Bridges to excellence: a program to start closing the quality chasm in healthcare. J Healthcare Qual. 2003;25:2;11
  4. Hayes JC. Utilization management: exec panel reveals keys to the system. http://www.diagnosticimaging.com/display/article/113619/1193592?verify=0Accessed March 8, 2009
  5. Jarvik JG, Hollingworth W, Martin B, et al. Rapid magnetic resonance imaging vs radiographs for patients with low back pain. JAMA. 2003;289:2810–2818
  6. Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy & Clinical Practice. The Dartmouth atlas of health care. http://www.dartmouthatlas.orgAccessed August 14, 2009
  7. Lurie JD, Birkmeyer NJ, Weinstein JN. Rates of advanced spinal imaging and spine surgery. Spine. 2003;28:616–620
  8. Gottlieb RH. Imaging for whom: patient or physician?. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005;195:1399–1403
  9. Gottlieb RH, La TC, Erturk EN, et al. CT in detecting urinary tract calculi: influence on patient imaging and clinical outcomes. Radiology. 2002;225:441–449
  10. Sistrom CL. The appropriateness of imaging: a comprehensive conceptual framework. Radiology. 2009;251:637–649
  11. Stiell IG, Clement CM, Rowe BH, et al. Comparison of the Canadian CT head rule and the New Orleans criteria in patients with minor head injury. JAMA. 2005;294:1511–1518
  12. Wolf AB, Brem RF. Decreased mammography utilization in the United States: why reverse the trend?. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;192:400–402
  13. Moser JW, Hastreiter DM. 2007 survey of radiologists: source of income and impact of the deficit reduction act of 2005. J Am Coll Radiol. 2009;6:408–416
  14. The Joint Commission. Sentinel event statistics as of: September 30, 2009. http://www.jointcommission.org/NR/rdonlyres/377FF7E7-F565-4D61-9FD2-593CA688135B/0/SE_Stats_9_09.pdfAccessed December 28, 2009
  15. The United States Pharmacopeial Convention. MEDMARX® data report: a chartbook of 2000-2004 findings from intensive care units and radiological services. Rockville, Md: The United States Pharmacopeial Convention.
  16. Mizrahi T. Managing medical mistakes: ideology, insularity and accountability among internists-in-training. Soc Sci Med. 1984;19:135–146
  17. Dawson D, Reid K. Fatigue, alcohol and performance impairment. Nature. 1997;388:235
  18. Landrigan CP, Rothschild JM, Cronin JW, et al. Effect of reducing interns' work hours on serious medical errors in intensive care units. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:1838–1848
  19. Fidler JL, MacCarty RL, Swensen SJ, et al. Feasibility of using a walking workstation during CT image interpretation. J Am Coll Radiol. 2008;5:1130–1136
  20. Frush DP. Radiation, CT and children: the simple answer is … it's complicated. Radiology. 2009;252:4–6
  21. Brenner DJ, Hall EJ. Computed tomography—an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:2277–2284
  22. Sidhu M, Coley BD, Connolly B, et al. Image Gently, Step Lightly: Increasing radiation dose awareness in pediatric interventional radiology. Pediatric Radiology. 2009;39:1135–1138Heidelberg: Springer Berlin
  23. Berlin L. Malpractice and radiologists, update 1986: an 11.5-year perspective. Am J Roentgenol. 1986;147:1291–1298
  24. Berlin L, Berlin JW. Malpractice and radiologists in Cook County, IL: trends in 20 years of litigation. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1995;165:781–788
  25. Sickles EA, Wolverton DE, Dee KE. Performance parameters for screening and diagnostic mammography: specialist and general radiologists. Radiology. 2002;224:861–869
  26. Johnson CD, Krecke KN, Miranda R, Roberts CC, Denham C. Quality initiatives: developing a radiology quality and safety program: a primer. Radiographics. 2009;29:951–959
  27. Reiner BI, Knight N, Siegel EL. Radiology reporting, past, present and future: the radiologist's perspective. J Am Coll Radiol. 2007;4:313–319
  28. Schreiber MH, Leonard M, Rieniets CY. Disclosure of imaging findings to patients directly by radiologists: survey of patients' preferences. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1995;165:467–469
  29. Anderson GF, Reinhardt UE, Hussey PS, Petrosyan V. It's the price, stupid: why the United States is so different from other countries. Health Aff. 2003;22:89–105
  30. Collins J. Good to great: why some companies make the leap … and others don't. New York: HarperCollins; 2001;41-64
  31. Weisman J. Bush report offers positive outlook on jobsThe Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A26982-2004Feb9?language=printerFebruary 10, 2004;Accessed December 28, 2009
  32. Gladwell M. The picture problem—mammography, air power, and the limits of looking. The New Yorker. December 13, 2004;
  33. Swensen SJ, Johnson CD. Radiologic quality and safety: mapping value into radiology. J Am Coll Radiol. 2005;2:992–1000
  34. Turner Y, Hadas-Halpern I. The effects of including a patient's photograph to the radiographic examination. [abstract] 2008;Present at: Annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America; Chicago, Ill

PII: S1546-1440(09)00552-3

doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2009.10.017

Journal of the American College of Radiology
Volume 7, Issue 3 , Pages 216-221 , March 2010

Article Tools