Assessing the Quality of Vascular Ultrasound Examinations Using the IAC QI Self-Assessment Tool: Inter-rater and Intra-rater Agreement Between Vascular Technologists and Interpreting Physicians for CME Credit March 2023

Q4 Medicine
Bakhtawar N. Bajwa, Y. B. Esterson, J. Naidich, Brian J. Burke, Catherine A. D’Agostino, M. Kline, J. Pellerito
{"title":"Assessing the Quality of Vascular Ultrasound Examinations Using the IAC QI Self-Assessment Tool: Inter-rater and Intra-rater Agreement Between Vascular Technologists and Interpreting Physicians for CME Credit March 2023","authors":"Bakhtawar N. Bajwa, Y. B. Esterson, J. Naidich, Brian J. Burke, Catherine A. D’Agostino, M. Kline, J. Pellerito","doi":"10.1177/15443167221121661","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Vascular laboratories need to improve efficiency while maintaining examination quality. Vascular ultrasound examinations were retrospectively evaluated using the Intersocietal Accreditation Commission (IAC) Quality Improvement (QI) self-assessment tool to evaluate the quality of the examinations and to determine inter-rater and intra-rater agreement between groups of vascular technologists and interpreting physicians. Vascular technologists and attending interpreting physicians evaluated 100 carotid Doppler and 100 lower extremity venous Doppler examinations utilizing the IAC QI self-assessment tool. Gwet’s First-Order Agreement Coefficient (AC1) statistic and 95% confidence intervals were calculated to determine both inter-rater and intra-rater agreement. The inter-rater agreement for 91% of all questions ranged from substantial (AC1 = 0.6) to almost perfect (AC1 = 1) for both examination types across all reviewers. Agreement on 2 questions was suboptimal: specifically, the technical quality section for the vascular technologists showed slight agreement for carotid Doppler and venous Doppler examinations (AC1 = 0.108 and 0.087, respectively), and the case review section for the interpreting physicians showed poor agreement for carotid Doppler examinations (AC1 = –0.087) and fair agreement for venous Doppler examinations (AC1 = 0.329). The intra-rater agreement among the interpreting physicians for both examinations was in the almost perfect range (Carotid AC1 = 0.875-1; Venous AC1 = 0.871-1). The intra-rater agreement among the vascular technologists for both examinations ranged from slight to almost perfect (Carotid AC1 = 0.191-1; Venous AC1 = 0.155-1). Substantial to almost perfect agreement among all reviewers was observed for most of the quality review questions. The IAC QI self-assessment tool aided in identifying areas for improvement in vascular studies and the comments captured in the technical quality section of the tool were instrumental in establishing areas for quality improvement.","PeriodicalId":52510,"journal":{"name":"Journal for Vascular Ultrasound","volume":"47 1","pages":"49 - 49"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal for Vascular Ultrasound","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15443167221121661","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Vascular laboratories need to improve efficiency while maintaining examination quality. Vascular ultrasound examinations were retrospectively evaluated using the Intersocietal Accreditation Commission (IAC) Quality Improvement (QI) self-assessment tool to evaluate the quality of the examinations and to determine inter-rater and intra-rater agreement between groups of vascular technologists and interpreting physicians. Vascular technologists and attending interpreting physicians evaluated 100 carotid Doppler and 100 lower extremity venous Doppler examinations utilizing the IAC QI self-assessment tool. Gwet’s First-Order Agreement Coefficient (AC1) statistic and 95% confidence intervals were calculated to determine both inter-rater and intra-rater agreement. The inter-rater agreement for 91% of all questions ranged from substantial (AC1 = 0.6) to almost perfect (AC1 = 1) for both examination types across all reviewers. Agreement on 2 questions was suboptimal: specifically, the technical quality section for the vascular technologists showed slight agreement for carotid Doppler and venous Doppler examinations (AC1 = 0.108 and 0.087, respectively), and the case review section for the interpreting physicians showed poor agreement for carotid Doppler examinations (AC1 = –0.087) and fair agreement for venous Doppler examinations (AC1 = 0.329). The intra-rater agreement among the interpreting physicians for both examinations was in the almost perfect range (Carotid AC1 = 0.875-1; Venous AC1 = 0.871-1). The intra-rater agreement among the vascular technologists for both examinations ranged from slight to almost perfect (Carotid AC1 = 0.191-1; Venous AC1 = 0.155-1). Substantial to almost perfect agreement among all reviewers was observed for most of the quality review questions. The IAC QI self-assessment tool aided in identifying areas for improvement in vascular studies and the comments captured in the technical quality section of the tool were instrumental in establishing areas for quality improvement.
使用IAC QI自我评估工具评估血管超声检查的质量:血管技术人员和口译医师之间的评分者之间和评分者之间的协议,CME学分2023年3月
血管实验室需要在保证检测质量的同时提高效率。采用国际社会认可委员会(IAC)质量改进(QI)自我评估工具对血管超声检查进行回顾性评估,以评估检查质量,并确定血管技术人员和口译医师组之间的评分间和评分内一致性。血管技术人员和主治口译医师利用IAC QI自我评估工具评估了100例颈动脉多普勒和100例下肢静脉多普勒检查。计算Gwet的一阶协议系数(AC1)统计量和95%置信区间,以确定评级者之间和评级者内部的一致性。对于所有审稿人的两种考试类型,91%的审稿人之间的一致性范围从相当(AC1 = 0.6)到几乎完美(AC1 = 1)。2个问题的一致性不理想:其中,血管技术人员的技术质量部分对颈动脉多普勒检查和静脉多普勒检查的一致性较弱(AC1分别为0.108和0.087),口译医师的病例回顾部分对颈动脉多普勒检查的一致性较差(AC1 = -0.087),对静脉多普勒检查的一致性一般(AC1 = 0.329)。口译医师对这两项检查的评分一致性在几乎完美的范围内(颈动脉AC1 = 0.875-1;静脉AC1 = 0.871-1)。血管技术人员对这两项检查的评分一致性从轻微到几乎完全(颈动脉AC1 = 0.191-1;静脉AC1 = 0.155-1)。在大多数质量审查问题上,观察到所有审稿人几乎完全一致。IAC QI自我评估工具有助于确定血管研究中需要改进的领域,该工具的技术质量部分所收集的评论有助于确定质量改进的领域。
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
Journal for Vascular Ultrasound
Journal for Vascular Ultrasound Medicine-Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
42
×
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