Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2011 Apr;18(4):495-503.
doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2010.11.017. Epub 2011 Jan 20.

Using a tailored web-based intervention to set goals to reduce unnecessary recall

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Using a tailored web-based intervention to set goals to reduce unnecessary recall

Patricia A Carney et al. Acad Radiol. 2011 Apr.

Abstract

Rationale and objectives: To examine whether an intervention strategy consisting of a tailored web-based intervention, which provides individualized audit data with peer comparisons and other data that can affect recall, can assist radiologists in setting goals for reducing unnecessary recall.

Materials and methods: In a multisite randomized controlled study, we used a tailored web-based intervention to assess radiologists' ability to set goals to improve interpretive performance. The intervention provided peer comparison audit data, profiled breast cancer risk in each radiologist's respective patient populations, and evaluated the possible impact of medical malpractice concerns. We calculated the percentage of radiologists who would consider changing their recall rates, and examined the specific goals they set to reduce recall rates. We describe characteristics of radiologists who developed realistic goals to reduce their recall rates, and their reactions to the importance of patient risk factors and medical malpractice concerns.

Results: Forty-one of 46 radiologists (89.1%) who started the intervention completed it. Thirty-one (72.1%) indicated they would like to change their recall rates and 30 (69.8%) entered a text response about changing their rates. Sixteen of the 30 (53.3%) radiologists who included a text response set realistic goals that would likely result in reducing unnecessary recall. The actual recall rates of those who set realistic goals were not statistically different from those who did not (13.8% vs. 15.1%, respectively). The majority of selected goals involved re-reviewing cases initially interpreted as Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System category 0. More than half of radiologists who commented on the influence of patient risk (56.3%) indicated that radiologists planned to pay more attention to risk factors, and 100% of participants commented on concerns radiologists have about malpractice with the primary concern (37.5%) being fear of lawsuits.

Conclusions: Interventions designed to reduce unnecessary recall can succeed in assisting radiologists to develop goals that may ultimately reduce unnecessary recall.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Elmore JG, Wells CK, Lee CH, Howard DH, Feinstein AR. Variability in radiologists' interpretations of mammograms. N Engl J Med. 1994;331:1493–1499. - PubMed
    1. Beam CA, Layde PM, Sullivan DC. Variability in the Interpretation of screening mammograms by US radiologists. Arch Intern Med. 1996;156:209–213. - PubMed
    1. Elmore JG, Miglioretti DL, Reisch LM, et al. Screening mammograms by community radiologists: variability in false-positive rates. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94:1373–1380. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Smith-Bindman R, Chu P, Miglioretti DL, et al. Physician predictors of mammographic accuracy. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97:358–367. - PubMed
    1. Carney PA, Elmore JG, Abraham LA, Gerrity MS, Hendrick RE, Taplin SH, Barlow WE, Cutter GR, Poplack SP, D'Orsi CJ. Radiologist Uncertainty and the Interpretation of Screening Mammography. Medical Decision Making. 2004;24(3):255–264. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types