Joint Department of Medical Imaging, University Health Network, Mount Sinai Hospital, Women's College Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Joint Department of Medical Imaging, University Health Network, Mount Sinai Hospital, Women's College Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
J Med Imaging Radiat Sci. 2021 Mar;52(1):29-36. doi: 10.1016/j.jmir.2020.11.009. Epub 2020 Dec 8.
INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND: A peer learning program includes the process of peer review, which is the act of performing a secondary review of a peer's work using pre-defined criteria. The Technologist Image Quality Assessment Criteria Project (TIQACP) was initiated to develop and evaluate such criteria for use by technologists for assessment of image quality in Nuclear Medicine (NM).
A NM clinical expert panel was assembled, comprising 14 technologists, radiologists, and educators from five imaging centres and an academic institution with associated medical imaging training programs. Project design was guided by consensus-based methodology that included three phases: (1) image quality assessment criteria development, based on literature search and expert review (2) image quality assessment criteria refinement, based on consensus-building exercises (panel surveys, discussions, ranking exercise, and time trial) (3) external validation performed via a national survey of NM technologists, facilitated by the Canadian Association of Medical Radiation Technologists.
The first phase generated 8 key evidence sources, including textbooks, NM journals and guidelines from professional associations that were reviewed by the expert panel leads and led to a preliminary list of 11 criteria. As part of the second phase, the preliminary list was reviewed via online surveys and panel discussions. Preliminary discussions led to an initial expansion of the list to include 18 criteria. This list required an average of 9 min (range: 7-11 min) for review, which was deemed prohibitive by the panel. A ranking exercise identified 'all required anatomy is clearly identified' as the most relevant criteria and 'Image quality demonstrates no breakdown of the radiopharmaceutical' as the least relevant criteria. Panel discussion also highlighted need to eliminate criteria that were not applicable to all settings. These insights led to an updated list of nine criteria organized into four categories. National validation was supported by 47 NM technologists from across Canada. Respondents were in agreement that the criteria reflected the core elements of image quality in NM (94% agree to strongly agree), were familiar (97%) and were relevant to their current practice setting (88%). The final list was thus not changed based on the survey.
DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: The TIQACP utilized an inclusive process that engaged a range of subject matter experts and the broader NM community to ensure buy-in of the final criteria. These criteria have subsequently been embedded in peer review software that has been implemented into a robust peer learning program for technologists designed to promote a culture of continuous improvement and knowledge sharing amongst front-line staff.
简介/背景：同伴学习计划包括同行评审过程，即使用预定义标准对同行的工作进行二次审查的行为。启动 Technologist Image Quality Assessment Criteria Project（TIQACP）是为了制定和评估用于核医学（NM）技术员评估图像质量的此类标准。
成立了一个 NM 临床专家小组，由来自五个成像中心和一个具有相关医学成像培训计划的学术机构的 14 名技术员、放射科医生和教育工作者组成。项目设计以基于共识的方法为指导，包括三个阶段：（1）基于文献检索和专家审查的图像质量评估标准制定；（2）基于共识建立练习的图像质量评估标准完善（小组调查、讨论、排名练习和时间试验）；（3）通过加拿大医学放射技师协会协助的全国 NM 技师调查进行外部验证。
第一阶段产生了 8 个主要证据来源，包括教科书、NM 期刊和专业协会指南，这些都由专家小组负责人进行了审查，从而初步确定了 11 项标准。作为第二阶段的一部分，初步清单通过在线调查和小组讨论进行了审查。初步讨论导致初步扩展清单，包括 18 项标准。该清单审查平均需要 9 分钟（范围：7-11 分钟），小组认为这是不可行的。排名练习确定“清楚地识别所有所需的解剖结构”为最相关的标准，“图像质量未显示放射性药物的分解”为最不相关的标准。小组讨论还强调需要删除不适用于所有环境的标准。这些见解导致了一个更新的、分为四个类别的九个标准清单。加拿大各地的 47 名 NM 技师支持国家验证。受访者一致认为，这些标准反映了 NM 图像质量的核心要素（94%的人表示同意至非常同意），熟悉（97%），并且与他们当前的实践环境相关（88%）。因此，根据调查，最终清单没有更改。
讨论/结论：TIQACP 采用了一种包容性的过程，使各种主题专家和更广泛的 NM 社区参与其中，以确保最终标准得到认可。这些标准随后被嵌入到同行评审软件中，该软件已被纳入为技术人员设计的强大同行学习计划中，旨在促进一线员工的持续改进和知识共享文化。
