J Korean Med Assoc.  2015 Dec;58(12):1132-1137. 10.5124/jkma.2015.58.12.1132.

Future of quality management of medical imaging

• Choi JI

• KMID: 2195141
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.5124/jkma.2015.58.12.1132

Abstract

After the enactment of the laws for special medical devices, quality assurance for medical imaging devices such as computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and mammography has been widely performed in Korea and the results of quality assurance tests for these imaging devices also have been markedly improved. However, this is not the end. The ultimate goal of quality assurance for medical imaging might be the overall quality improvement over the whole process of imaging studies in medical fields. From this point of view, quality assurance of medical imaging has a long way to go. In this review, we will look some future perspectives of the quality assurance of medical imaging.

Keyword

Quality management; Radiology; Computed tomography; Magnetic resonance imaging; Ultrasonography

MeSH Terms

Diagnostic Imaging*
Jurisprudence
Korea
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Mammography
Quality Improvement
Ultrasonography

Reference

1. Korean Institute for Accreditation of Medical Imaging. A study for the management of special and high-price medical devices. Seoul: Korean Institute for Accreditation of Medical Imaging;2010.

2. Lee S, Choi JI, Park MY, Yeo DM, Byun JY, Jung SE, Rha SE, Oh SN, Lee YJ. Intra- and interobserver reliability of gray scale/dynamic range evaluation of ultrasonography using a standardized phantom. Ultrasonography. 2014; 33:91–97.

3. Choi JI, Kim PN, Jeong WK, Kim HC, Yang DM, Cha SH, Chung JJ. 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. J Ultrasound Med. 2011; 30:1221–1229.

4. Choi JI, Jung SE, Kim PN, Cha SH, Jun JK, Lee HY, Park EC. Quality assurance in ultrasound screening for hepatocellular carcinoma using a standardized phantom and standard clinical images: a 3-year national investigation in Korea. J Ultrasound Med. 2014; 33:985–995.

5. Brenner DJ, Hall EJ. Computed tomography: an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med. 2007; 357:2277–2284.

6. Bayer HealthCare. Radimetrics enterprise platform [Internet]. Whippany: Bayer HealthCare;cited 2015 Sep 22. Available from: http://www.Radiologysolutions.Bayer.Com/products/ct/dosemanagement/rep/.

7. Infinitt Healthcare. Infinitt DoseM [Internet]. Seoul: Infinitt Healthcare;cited 2015 Sep 22. Available from: http://www.Infinitt.Com/cms/products/radiology/infinitt-dosem?Lang=ko.

8. GE Healthcare. DoseWatch [Internet]. [place unknown]: GE Healthcare;cited 2015 Sep 22. Available from: http://www3.Gehealthcare.Com/en/products/dose_management/dosewatch.

9. Royal College of Radiologists. iRefer making the best use of clinical radiology [Internet]. London: Royal College of Radio-logists;2012. cited 2015 Sep 22. Available from: http://www.irefer.org.uk/.

10. American College of Radiology. ACR appropriateness criteria [Internet]. Reston: American College of Radiology;2015. cited 2015 Sep 22. Available from: http://www.acr.org/Quality-Safety/Appropriateness-Criteria.

11. Oakeshott P, Kerry SM, Williams JE. Randomized controlled trial of the effect of the Royal College of Radiologists' guide-lines on general practitioners' referrals for radiographic exam-ination. Br J Gen Pract. 1994; 44:197–200.

12. Eccles M, Steen N, Grimshaw J, Thomas L, McNamee P, Soutter J, Wilsdon J, Matowe L, Needham G, Gilbert F, Bond S. Effect of audit and feedback, and reminder messages on primary-care radiology referrals: a randomised trial. Lancet. 2001; 357:1406–1409.

13. Influence of Royal College of Radiologists' guidelines on referral from general practice: Royal College of Radiologists Working Party. BMJ. 1993; 306:110–111.