Contrast-Enhanced Mammography Implementation: Early Struggles and Successes.

IF 2 Q3 ONCOLOGY
Brittany Z Dashevsky, Laura J Fish, Shelby Breit, Uzma Waheed, Kristen Coffey, Jay R Parikh, Lisa A Mullen, Beatriu Reig, Brian N Dontchos, Katerina Dodelzon, Lars J Grimm
{"title":"Contrast-Enhanced Mammography Implementation: Early Struggles and Successes.","authors":"Brittany Z Dashevsky, Laura J Fish, Shelby Breit, Uzma Waheed, Kristen Coffey, Jay R Parikh, Lisa A Mullen, Beatriu Reig, Brian N Dontchos, Katerina Dodelzon, Lars J Grimm","doi":"10.1093/jbi/wbaf018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We used focus groups of radiologists who led the implementation of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) in their practice to identify barriers and strategies for adoption. Members of the Society of Breast Imaging in the United States who served as lead on CEM implementation were invited to participate in 2 separate focus groups. Ten breast imaging radiologists with varied geographic and practice type (60% academic, 30% private, and 10% community practice) participated. There were 4 major themes identified: patient selection, workflow, contrast, and billing. Patient selection varied widely among practices, with some limiting CEM to patients unable to obtain MRI and others routinely using CEM for diagnostic workup. Lack of Food and Drug Administration approval limited screening applications in some practices. Workflow challenges were numerous, and site-specific solutions were developed for ordering, scheduling, staffing, and intravenous access. There were universal concerns regarding contrast, including safe administration, response to reactions, and biopsy planning for findings only visible on CEM. Contrast reaction training, including conducting mock codes at some practices, helped alleviate concerns of the radiologists and technologists. Finally, billing was an administrative hurdle that influenced patient selection. Ample preparation is needed to successfully start a CEM program with particular attention to patient selection, workflow, contrast administration/reactions, and billing.</p>","PeriodicalId":43134,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Breast Imaging","volume":"7 3","pages":"345-354"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Breast Imaging","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jbi/wbaf018","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We used focus groups of radiologists who led the implementation of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) in their practice to identify barriers and strategies for adoption. Members of the Society of Breast Imaging in the United States who served as lead on CEM implementation were invited to participate in 2 separate focus groups. Ten breast imaging radiologists with varied geographic and practice type (60% academic, 30% private, and 10% community practice) participated. There were 4 major themes identified: patient selection, workflow, contrast, and billing. Patient selection varied widely among practices, with some limiting CEM to patients unable to obtain MRI and others routinely using CEM for diagnostic workup. Lack of Food and Drug Administration approval limited screening applications in some practices. Workflow challenges were numerous, and site-specific solutions were developed for ordering, scheduling, staffing, and intravenous access. There were universal concerns regarding contrast, including safe administration, response to reactions, and biopsy planning for findings only visible on CEM. Contrast reaction training, including conducting mock codes at some practices, helped alleviate concerns of the radiologists and technologists. Finally, billing was an administrative hurdle that influenced patient selection. Ample preparation is needed to successfully start a CEM program with particular attention to patient selection, workflow, contrast administration/reactions, and billing.

对比增强乳房x光检查的实施:早期的挣扎和成功。
我们使用了在实践中领导实施对比增强乳房x线照相术(CEM)的放射科医生的焦点小组来确定采用该技术的障碍和策略。美国乳腺成像学会的成员作为CEM实施的领导者被邀请参加两个独立的焦点小组。10名不同地域和执业类型的乳腺成像放射科医生(60%为学术,30%为私人执业,10%为社区执业)参与了研究。确定了4个主要主题:患者选择、工作流程、对比和计费。患者选择在实践中差异很大,一些限制CEM患者无法获得MRI和其他常规使用CEM诊断工作。缺乏食品和药物管理局的批准在某些实践中限制了筛选的应用。工作流程的挑战是众多的,并且针对订货、调度、人员配置和静脉注射访问开发了特定于站点的解决方案。人们普遍关注造影剂,包括安全给药,对反应的反应,以及仅在CEM上可见的活检计划。对比反应训练,包括在一些实践中进行模拟代码,有助于减轻放射科医生和技术人员的担忧。最后,账单是一个影响患者选择的行政障碍。成功启动CEM项目需要充分的准备,特别注意患者选择、工作流程、对比管理/反应和计费。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
20.00%
发文量
81
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信