Hopper K D, Rosetti G F, Edmiston R B, Madewell J E, Beam L M, Landis J R, Miller K L, Ricci J A, McCauslin M A
Department of Radiology, Pennsylvania State University, Hershey 17033.
Radiology. 1991 Aug;180(2):557-61. doi: 10.1148/radiology.180.2.2068327.
A proposed method of assessing the quality of diagnostic radiographic examinations includes peer review designed to evaluate physicians, including nonradiologists, involved in the performance and interpretation of such examinations. A pilot project evaluated this system with randomly selected Pennsylvania Blue Shield data files of 10 providers billing for chest radiography interpretations during the second quarter of 1989. Of the 98 chest radiographs reviewed blindly, all inadequately marked radiographs and incomplete written reports were produced by nonradiologists. Technical quality of images obtained by radiologists did not significantly differ from that of images obtained by nonradiologists (P = .189). All five interpretive errors that could have seriously affected the patient's health care were produced by nonradiologists (P = .019). Four of these serious errors were made by providers billing for fewer than 25 radiographs. While administrative and time cost limitations are obvious, this method of peer review encompasses all physicians billing for a particular radiographic service, irrespective of specialty.
一种评估诊断性放射检查质量的提议方法包括同行评审，旨在评估参与此类检查操作和解读的医生，包括非放射科医生。一个试点项目使用1989年第二季度宾夕法尼亚蓝盾公司随机选取的10家提供胸部X光解读计费服务的机构的数据文件对该系统进行了评估。在98份被盲法评审的胸部X光片中，所有标记不充分的X光片和不完整的书面报告均由非放射科医生出具。放射科医生获取的图像技术质量与非放射科医生获取的图像技术质量无显著差异（P = 0.189）。所有可能严重影响患者医疗护理的五项解读错误均由非放射科医生造成（P = 0.019）。其中四项严重错误是由开具少于25份X光片账单的机构造成的。虽然行政和时间成本限制显而易见，但这种同行评审方法涵盖了所有为特定放射服务开具账单的医生，无论其专业如何。
