Megan K. Russ, Justin Solomon, Steve Bache, Nicole M. Lafata, Erin B. Macdonald, Ehsan Samei
{"title":"将医学物理集成到基于电子磁共振的放射学反馈系统中，以提高质量","authors":"Megan K. Russ, Justin Solomon, Steve Bache, Nicole M. Lafata, Erin B. Macdonald, Ehsan Samei","doi":"10.1002/acm2.70227","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>Medical physicists play a critical role in ensuring image quality and patient safety, but their routine evaluations are limited in scope and frequency compared to the breadth of clinical imaging practices. An electronic radiologist feedback system can augment medical physics oversight for quality improvement. This work presents a novel quality feedback system integrated into the Epic electronic medical record (EMR) at a university hospital system, designed to facilitate feedback from radiologists to medical physicists and technologist leaders.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>The feedback system was designed to enable radiologists to report quality issues directly through a streamlined survey during report dictation. The feedback encompasses technical details including image noise, artifact, and contrast issues, as well as acquisition-related concerns such as positioning errors or protocol deviations. Submissions are routed to modality-specific teams consisting of technologist leaders and medical physicists, who investigate and address reported issues. The roles of medical physicists in this feedback system were evaluated over a 31-month period.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Physicists addressed 9.3% of 515 tickets that warranted follow-up, with greater involvement in resolving technical quality issues including artifacts and issues related to noise and image contrast. Examples of physicist-led interventions included correcting radiography image processing settings, optimizing computed tomography dose settings, and identifying trends in ultrasound quality issues that prompted protocol updates and staff training.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>This work demonstrates the value of radiology quality feedback systems and the opportunity to address issues not typically identified during routine medical physics quality assurance. By leveraging radiologist feedback, physicists can enhance clinical practice, promote continuous improvement, and ensure consistent, high-quality imaging and safety for patients.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":14989,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics","volume":"26 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://aapm.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/acm2.70227","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Integrating medical physics into an EMR-based radiology feedback system for quality improvement\",\"authors\":\"Megan K. Russ, Justin Solomon, Steve Bache, Nicole M. Lafata, Erin B. Macdonald, Ehsan Samei\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/acm2.70227\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Introduction</h3>\\n \\n <p>Medical physicists play a critical role in ensuring image quality and patient safety, but their routine evaluations are limited in scope and frequency compared to the breadth of clinical imaging practices. An electronic radiologist feedback system can augment medical physics oversight for quality improvement. This work presents a novel quality feedback system integrated into the Epic electronic medical record (EMR) at a university hospital system, designed to facilitate feedback from radiologists to medical physicists and technologist leaders.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>The feedback system was designed to enable radiologists to report quality issues directly through a streamlined survey during report dictation. The feedback encompasses technical details including image noise, artifact, and contrast issues, as well as acquisition-related concerns such as positioning errors or protocol deviations. Submissions are routed to modality-specific teams consisting of technologist leaders and medical physicists, who investigate and address reported issues. The roles of medical physicists in this feedback system were evaluated over a 31-month period.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Physicists addressed 9.3% of 515 tickets that warranted follow-up, with greater involvement in resolving technical quality issues including artifacts and issues related to noise and image contrast. Examples of physicist-led interventions included correcting radiography image processing settings, optimizing computed tomography dose settings, and identifying trends in ultrasound quality issues that prompted protocol updates and staff training.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>This work demonstrates the value of radiology quality feedback systems and the opportunity to address issues not typically identified during routine medical physics quality assurance. By leveraging radiologist feedback, physicists can enhance clinical practice, promote continuous improvement, and ensure consistent, high-quality imaging and safety for patients.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14989,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics\",\"volume\":\"26 9\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://aapm.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/acm2.70227\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://aapm.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acm2.70227\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://aapm.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acm2.70227","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
Integrating medical physics into an EMR-based radiology feedback system for quality improvement
Introduction
Medical physicists play a critical role in ensuring image quality and patient safety, but their routine evaluations are limited in scope and frequency compared to the breadth of clinical imaging practices. An electronic radiologist feedback system can augment medical physics oversight for quality improvement. This work presents a novel quality feedback system integrated into the Epic electronic medical record (EMR) at a university hospital system, designed to facilitate feedback from radiologists to medical physicists and technologist leaders.
Methods
The feedback system was designed to enable radiologists to report quality issues directly through a streamlined survey during report dictation. The feedback encompasses technical details including image noise, artifact, and contrast issues, as well as acquisition-related concerns such as positioning errors or protocol deviations. Submissions are routed to modality-specific teams consisting of technologist leaders and medical physicists, who investigate and address reported issues. The roles of medical physicists in this feedback system were evaluated over a 31-month period.
Results
Physicists addressed 9.3% of 515 tickets that warranted follow-up, with greater involvement in resolving technical quality issues including artifacts and issues related to noise and image contrast. Examples of physicist-led interventions included correcting radiography image processing settings, optimizing computed tomography dose settings, and identifying trends in ultrasound quality issues that prompted protocol updates and staff training.
Conclusion
This work demonstrates the value of radiology quality feedback systems and the opportunity to address issues not typically identified during routine medical physics quality assurance. By leveraging radiologist feedback, physicists can enhance clinical practice, promote continuous improvement, and ensure consistent, high-quality imaging and safety for patients.
期刊介绍：
Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics is an international Open Access publication dedicated to clinical medical physics. JACMP welcomes original contributions dealing with all aspects of medical physics from scientists working in the clinical medical physics around the world. JACMP accepts only online submission.
JACMP will publish:
-Original Contributions: Peer-reviewed, investigations that represent new and significant contributions to the field. Recommended word count: up to 7500.
-Review Articles: Reviews of major areas or sub-areas in the field of clinical medical physics. These articles may be of any length and are peer reviewed.
-Technical Notes: These should be no longer than 3000 words, including key references.
-Letters to the Editor: Comments on papers published in JACMP or on any other matters of interest to clinical medical physics. These should not be more than 1250 (including the literature) and their publication is only based on the decision of the editor, who occasionally asks experts on the merit of the contents.
-Book Reviews: The editorial office solicits Book Reviews.
-Announcements of Forthcoming Meetings: The Editor may provide notice of forthcoming meetings, course offerings, and other events relevant to clinical medical physics.
-Parallel Opposed Editorial: We welcome topics relevant to clinical practice and medical physics profession. The contents can be controversial debate or opposed aspects of an issue. One author argues for the position and the other against. Each side of the debate contains an opening statement up to 800 words, followed by a rebuttal up to 500 words. Readers interested in participating in this series should contact the moderator with a proposed title and a short description of the topic
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
