| Title |
Telemedicine-based system for quality management and peer review in radiology
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Insights into Imaging, May 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13244-018-0629-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sergey Morozov, Ekaterina Guseva, Natalya Ledikhova, Anton Vladzymyrskyy, Dmitry Safronov |
| Abstract |
Quality assurance is the key component of modern radiology. A telemedicine-based quality assurance system helps to overcome the "scoring" approach and makes the quality control more accessible and objective. A concept for quality assurance in radiology is developed. Its realization is a set of strategies, actions, and tools. The latter is based on telemedicine-based peer review of 23,199 computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) images. The conception of the system for quality management in radiology represents a chain of actions: "discrepancies evaluation - routine support - quality improvement activity - discrepancies evaluation". It is realized by an audit methodology, telemedicine, elearning, and other technologies. After a year of systemic telemedicine-based peer reviews, the authors have estimated that clinically significant discrepancies were detected in 6% of all cases, while clinically insignificant ones were found in 19% of cases. Most often, problems appear in musculoskeletal records; 80% of the examinations have diagnostic or technical imperfections. The presence of routine telemedicine support and personalized elearning allowed improving the diagnostics quality. The level of discrepancies has decreased significantly (p < 0.05). The telemedicine-based peer review system allows improving radiology departments' network effectiveness. • "Scoring" approach to radiologists' performance assessment must be changed. • Telemedicine peer review and personalized elearning significantly decrease the number of discrepancies. • Teleradiology allows linking all primary-level hospitals to a common peer review network. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Hungary | 1 | 25% |
| United States | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 63 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 13% |
| Researcher | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 10% |
| Lecturer | 4 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 13 | 21% |
| Unknown | 21 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 30% |
| Engineering | 5 | 8% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 5% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 7 | 11% |
| Unknown | 23 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 June 2021.
All research outputs
#6,158,275
of 24,717,821 outputs
Outputs from Insights into Imaging
#360
of 1,134 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#99,203
of 334,830 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Insights into Imaging
#14
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,717,821 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,134 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 334,830 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.