Image quality improvement after implementation of a CT accreditation program

Hospital accreditation impact on healthcare quality dimensions: a systematic review

PURPOSE

To systematically review the impact of hospital accreditation on healthcare quality indicators, as classified into seven healthcare quality dimensions.

DATA SOURCE

We searched eight databases in June 2020: EBSCO, PubMed, Web of Science, Emerald, ProQuest, Science Direct, Scopus and Virtual Health Library. Search terms were conceptualized into three groups: hospitals, accreditation and terms relating to healthcare quality. The eligibility criteria included academic articles that applied quantitative methods to examine the impact of hospital accreditation on healthcare quality indicators.

STUDY SELECTION

We applied the PICO framework to select the articles according to the following criteria: Population-all types of hospitals; Intervention-hospital accreditation; Comparison-quantitative method applied to compare accredited vs. nonaccredited hospitals, or hospitals before vs. after accreditation; Outcomes-regarding the seven healthcare quality dimensions. After a critical appraisal of the 943 citations initially retrieved, 36 studies were included in this review.

RESULTS OF DATA SYNTHESIS

Overall results suggest that accreditation may have a positive impact on efficiency, safety, effectiveness, timeliness and patient-centeredness. In turn, only one study analyzes the impact on access, and no study has investigated the impact on equity dimension yet.

CONCLUSION

Mainly due to the methodological shortcomings, the positive impact of accreditation on healthcare dimensions should be interpreted with caution. This study provides an up-to-date overview of the main themes examined in the literature, highlighting critical knowledge-gaps and methodological flaws. The findings may provide value to healthcare stakeholders in terms of improving their ability to assess the relevance of accreditation processes.

S. Impact of accreditation on performance of healthcare organizations

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to review the accreditation research in specific to its effect on the performance of healthcare organizations.

Design/methodology/approach

A comprehensive search and analysis of literature on the effect of healthcare accreditation were conducted between June 2017 and May 2018. The study identified 62 empirical research studies that examined the effect of healthcare accreditation programmes. Study particulars such as year of publication, objectives, focus of the study, research settings and key findings were recorded. A content analysis was performed to identify the frequency of the main themes in the literature. Knowledge gaps needing further examination were identified.

Findings

Majority of the accreditation impact studies were carried out in the developed nations (n = 49). The thematic categories, that is the impact on “patient safety and healthcare quality” (n = 26), “healthcare professionals’ views” (n = 28) and “clinical process and outcomes” (n = 17) were addressed more times. Whereas the other two thematic categories “organizational performance” and “consumers’ views or satisfaction,” each was examined less than 10 instances. This review reveals mixed views on effect of healthcare accreditation. The varied quality of studies and the availability of a few studies on consumers’ perception of accreditation effectiveness were the important limiting factors of this review.

Originality/value

The findings are valuable to healthcare managers and hospital administrators in accreditation decisions, whereas findings are of value to researchers and academicians in terms of gaps identified for future research studies pertaining to the impact of healthcare accreditation. Future studies need to consider holistic theoretical frameworks for assessing the effect of accreditation on performance of healthcare organizations to achieve precise results.

Effect of Digital Mammography for Breast Cancer Screening: A Comparative Study of More than 8 Million Korean Women

Background Full-field digital mammography (FFDM) has been accepted as a superior modality for breast cancer screening compared with conventional screen-film mammography (SFM), especially in women younger than 50 years or with dense breasts. Purpose To evaluate the accuracy of FFDM for breast cancer screening. Materials and Methods Data from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2013 in the database from a nationwide breast cancer screening program linked with the national cancer registry were retrospectively analyzed. The study included Korean women aged 40-79 years who had undergone screening mammography with SFM, computed radiography (CR), or FFDM. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and absolute and relative differences among these modalities were calculated, followed by pairwise comparison tests with multiple testing corrections. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUCs) were also estimated and compared by using the DeLong method with Bonferroni correction. Results Among the 8 482 803 women included (mean age, 55 years ± 10), 34.4% (2 920 279 of 8 482 803), 51.7% (4 385 807 of 8 482 803), and 13.9% (1 176 717 of 8 482 803) underwent SFM, CR, and FFDM, respectively. The sensitivity and PPV were higher for FFDM than for SFM (adjusted odds ratio, 1.77 [95% confidence interval {CI}: 1.62, 1.95] for sensitivity and 1.36 [95% CI: 1.29, 1.43] for PPV) and CR (adjusted odds ratio, 1.70 [95% CI: 1.56, 1.85] for sensitivity and 1.26 [95% CI: 1.20, 1.32] for PPV), whereas specificity was lower with FFDM. The overall AUC for FFDM was 0.80 (95% CI: 0.80, 0.81), which was higher than that for SFM (0.75 [95% CI: 0.75, 0.76]) and CR (0.76 [95% CI: 0.75, 0.76]). P < .05 was found for differences in sensitivity, PPV, and AUC among modalities overall and in most of the subgroups of age, breast density, and screening round. Conclusion Full-field digital mammography allows better discrimination or prediction of breast cancer in the general female population than screen-film mammography or computed radiography, regardless of age, breast density, or screening round. © RSNA, 2019 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Use of Iterative Cycles in Quality Improvement Projects in Imaging: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

Studies suggest that quality improvement (QI) projects in health care lack scientific rigor, but the actual frequency of use of proven scientific QI methodology is unknown. The purposes of this study are to (1) conduct a systematic review of QI projects in radiology journals on the frequency of use of iterative cycles, a marker of proven QI methodology, and (2) assess association of the use of iterative cycles with characteristics of these projects.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched English-language radiology journals on MEDLINE between 2008 and 2015 for published QI studies. Three reviewers appraised studies and extracted data. Use of iterative cycles was identified, and results were summarized qualitatively. χ² Analysis evaluated associations of iterative cycles with other data elements.

RESULTS

Of 3,134 potentially eligible citations, 44 studies met inclusion criteria. Only 46% of these used iterative cycles to refine intervention. Use of iterative cycles were associated with projects designed to improve process, QI expert support, reporting of unintended effect of intervention, and explicitly stated use of iterative cycles. General lack of scientific rigor was represented by failure to report baseline data (9%), describe unintended effects (66%), and discuss limitations (36%).

CONCLUSIONS

Our systematic review found fewer than half of the QI projects in radiology journals used iterative cycles to refine intervention, a scientific strategy central to many proven improvement methodologies. Use of iterative approach was associated with projects designed to improve processes, QI expert support, report of unintended effect, and explicitly stated use of iterative cycles.

Evaluating the impact of accreditation and external peer review

Purpose

– Accreditation and external peer review play important roles in assessing and improving healthcare quality worldwide. Evidence on the impact on the quality of care remains indecisive because of programme features and methodological research challenges. The purpose of this paper is to create a general methodological research framework to design future studies in this field.

Design/methodology/approach

– A literature search on effects of external peer review and accreditation was conducted using PubMed/Medline, Embase and Web of Science. Three researchers independently screened the studies. Only original research papers that studied the impact on the quality of care were included. Studies were evaluated by their objectives and outcomes, study size and analysis entity (hospitals vs patients), theoretical framework, focus of the studied programme, heterogeneity of the study population and presence of a control group.

Findings

– After careful selection 50 articles were included out of an initial 2,025 retrieved references. Analysis showed a wide variation in methodological characteristics. Most studies are performed cross-sectionally and results are not linked to the programme by a theoretical framework.

Originality/value

– Based on the methodological characteristics of previous studies the authors propose a general research framework. This framework is intended to support the design of future research to evaluate the effects of accreditation and external peer review on the quality of care.

Quality assurance in ultrasound screening for hepatocellular carcinoma using a standardized phantom and standard clinical images: a 3-year national investigation in Korea

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to investigate the quality of ultrasound (US) imaging for hepatocellular carcinoma screening.

METHODS

The investigation was performed at all medical institutes participating in the National Cancer Screening Program in Korea. For assessment of personnel, we inquired who was performing the US screenings. For phantom image evaluation, the dead zone, vertical and horizontal measurements, axial and lateral resolution, sensitivity, and gray scale/dynamic range were evaluated. For clinical image evaluation, US images of patients were evaluated in terms of the standard images, technical information, overall image quality, appropriateness of depth, foci, annotations, and the presence of any artifacts.

RESULTS

Failure rates for phantom and clinical image evaluations at general hospitals, smaller hospitals, and private clinics were 20.9%, 24.5%, 24.1% and 5.5%, and 14.8% and 9.5%, respectively. No statistically significant difference was observed in the failure rates for the phantom images among groups of different years of manufacture. For the clinical image evaluation, the results of radiologists were significantly better than those of other professional groups (P = .0001 and .0004 versus nonradiology physicians and nonphysicians, respectively). The failure rate was also higher when the storage format was analog versus digital (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately 20% of US scanners failed the phantom image evaluation. The year of scanner manufacture was not significantly associated with the results of the phantom image evaluation. The quality of the clinical images obtained by radiologists was the best.

Intra- and interobserver reliability of gray scale/dynamic range evaluation of ultrasonography using a standardized phantom

PURPOSE

To evaluate intra- and interobserver reliability of the gray scale/dynamic range of the phantom image evaluation of ultrasonography using a standardized phantom, and to assess the effect of interactive education on the reliability.

METHODS

Three radiologists (a resident, and two board-certified radiologists with 2 and 7 years of experience in evaluating ultrasound phantom images) performed the gray scale/dynamic range test for an ultrasound machine using a standardized phantom. They scored the number of visible cylindrical structures of varying degrees of brightness and made a 'pass or fail' decision. First, they scored 49 phantom images twice from a 2010 survey with limited knowledge of phantom images. After this, the radiologists underwent two hours of interactive education for the phantom images and scored another 91 phantom images from a 2011 survey twice. Intra- and interobserver reliability before and after the interactive education session were analyzed using K analyses.

RESULTS

Before education, the K-value for intraobserver reliability for the radiologist with 7 years of experience, 2 years of experience, and the resident was 0.386, 0.469, and 0.465, respectively. After education, the K-values were improved (0.823, 0.611, and 0.711, respectively). For interobserver reliability, the K-value was also better after the education for the 3 participants (0.067, 0.002, and 0.547 before education; 0.635, 0.667, and 0.616 after education, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The intra- and interobserver reliability of the gray scale/dynamic range was fair to substantial. Interactive education can improve reliability. For more reliable results, double- checking of phantom images by multiple reviewers is recommended.

Establishing cutoff values for a quality assurance test using an ultrasound phantom in screening ultrasound examinations for hepatocellular carcinoma: an initial report of a nationwide survey in Korea

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the results of ultrasound (US) device testing using a US phantom and to determine cutoff values for phantom quality assurance tests in US examinations for the screening of hepatocellular carcinoma in Korea.

METHODS

Ultrasound phantom images were acquired from the general hospitals in Korea that participated in the National Cancer Screening Program for hepatocellular carcinoma. Ultrasound images of the phantom were acquired with a 3.0- to 5.0-MHz convex transducer and evaluated in terms of the dead zone, vertical and horizontal measurement, axial and lateral resolution, sensitivity, and gray scale/dynamic range. Appropriate cutoff values were determined to guarantee minimal qualifications for the performance of the US scanners.

RESULTS

Three hundred fifty-seven US scanners were tested using the following cutoff values: less than 2 mm for the dead zone, 5% discrepancy in the vertical measurement, 7.5% discrepancy in the horizontal measurement, all 11 identifiable line targets for axial and lateral resolution, more than 14 cm for sensitivity, and more than 4 cylindrical structures for gray scale/dynamic range. With these criteria, 283 US scanners (79.3%) passed the tests. The most common cause of disqualification was the dynamic range/gray scale. No statistical difference was observed in the disqualification rate between 3 groups based on different years of manufacture.

CONCLUSIONS

Through this study, we have defined cutoff values for phantom images acquired with US scanners. These will be used in performing screening US examinations for hepatocellular carcinoma in Korea.