TY - JOUR
T1 - Peer review in diagnostic radiology
T2 - Current state and a vision for the future
AU - Mahgerefteh, Shmuel
AU - Kruskal, Jonathan B.
AU - Yam, Chun S.
AU - Blachar, Arye
AU - Sosna, Jacob
PY - 2009/9
Y1 - 2009/9
N2 - Over the past decade, the level of interest in improving the quality of healthcare in the United States has increased. New requirements established by regulatory organizations require the ongoing practice-based evaluation of physician performance. Peer review, a key process in physician performance evaluation, is geared primarily toward measuring diagnostic accuracy. Accuracy may be measured in terms of interpretive agreement or disagreement during a blinded double reading or in workstation-integrated evaluations. Each method of assessing diagnostic accuracy has strengths and weaknesses that should be carefully considered before it is implemented in a particular departmental or institutional setting.
AB - Over the past decade, the level of interest in improving the quality of healthcare in the United States has increased. New requirements established by regulatory organizations require the ongoing practice-based evaluation of physician performance. Peer review, a key process in physician performance evaluation, is geared primarily toward measuring diagnostic accuracy. Accuracy may be measured in terms of interpretive agreement or disagreement during a blinded double reading or in workstation-integrated evaluations. Each method of assessing diagnostic accuracy has strengths and weaknesses that should be carefully considered before it is implemented in a particular departmental or institutional setting.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=70349919853&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1148/rg.295095086
DO - 10.1148/rg.295095086
M3 - ???researchoutput.researchoutputtypes.contributiontojournal.systematicreview???
C2 - 19564252
AN - SCOPUS:70349919853
SN - 0271-5333
VL - 29
SP - 1221
EP - 1231
JO - Radiographics
JF - Radiographics
IS - 5
ER -