Community-based mammography practice: Services, charges, and interpretation methods

R. Edward Hendrick, Gary R. Cutter, Eric A. Berns, Connie Nakano, Joseph Egger, Patricia (Patty) Carney, Linn Abraham, Stephen H. Taplin, Carl J. D'Orsi, William Barlow, Joann G. Elmore

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

17 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of our study was to accurately describe facility characteristics among community-based screening and diagnostic mammography practices in the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS. A survey was developed and applied to community-based facilities providing screening mammography in three geographically distinct locations in the states of Washington, Colorado, and New Hampshire. The facility survey was conducted between December 2001 and September 2002. Characteristics surveyed included facility type, services offered, charges for screening and diagnostic mammography, information systems, and interpretation methods, including the frequency of double interpretation. RESULTS. Among 45 responding facilities, services offered included screening mammography at all facilities, diagnostic mammography at 34 facilities (76%), breast sonography at 30 (67%), breast MRI at seven (16%), and nuclear medicine breast scanning at seven (16%). Most facilities surveyed were radiology practices in nonhospital settings. Eight facilities (18%) reported performing clinical breast examinations routinely along with screening mammography. Only five screening sites (11%) used computer-aided detection (CAD) and only two (5%) used digital mammography. Nearly two thirds of facilities interpreted screening mammography examinations on-site, whereas 91% of facilities interpreted diagnostic examinations on-site. Only three facilities (7%) interpreted screening examinations on line as they were performed. Approximately half of facilities reported using some type of double interpretation, although the methods of double interpretation and the fraction of cases double-interpreted varied widely across facilities. On average, approximately 15% of screening examinations and 10% of diagnostic examinations were reported as being double-interpreted. CONCLUSION. Comparison of this survey's results with those collected a decade earlier indicates dramatic changes in the practice of mammography, including a clear distinction between screening and diagnostic mammography, batch interpretation of screening mammograms, and improved quality assurance and medical audit tools. Diffusion of new technologies such as CAD and digital mammography was not widespread. The methods of double-interpretation and the fraction of cases double-interpreted varied widely across study sites.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)433-438
Number of pages6
JournalAmerican Journal of Roentgenology
Volume184
Issue number2
StatePublished - Feb 2005
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Mammography
Breast
Mammary Ultrasonography
Medical Audit
Nuclear Medicine
Radiology
Information Systems
Technology

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Radiological and Ultrasound Technology

Cite this

Hendrick, R. E., Cutter, G. R., Berns, E. A., Nakano, C., Egger, J., Carney, P. P., ... Elmore, J. G. (2005). Community-based mammography practice: Services, charges, and interpretation methods. American Journal of Roentgenology, 184(2), 433-438.

Community-based mammography practice : Services, charges, and interpretation methods. / Hendrick, R. Edward; Cutter, Gary R.; Berns, Eric A.; Nakano, Connie; Egger, Joseph; Carney, Patricia (Patty); Abraham, Linn; Taplin, Stephen H.; D'Orsi, Carl J.; Barlow, William; Elmore, Joann G.

In: American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol. 184, No. 2, 02.2005, p. 433-438.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Hendrick, RE, Cutter, GR, Berns, EA, Nakano, C, Egger, J, Carney, PP, Abraham, L, Taplin, SH, D'Orsi, CJ, Barlow, W & Elmore, JG 2005, 'Community-based mammography practice: Services, charges, and interpretation methods', American Journal of Roentgenology, vol. 184, no. 2, pp. 433-438.
Hendrick RE, Cutter GR, Berns EA, Nakano C, Egger J, Carney PP et al. Community-based mammography practice: Services, charges, and interpretation methods. American Journal of Roentgenology. 2005 Feb;184(2):433-438.
Hendrick, R. Edward ; Cutter, Gary R. ; Berns, Eric A. ; Nakano, Connie ; Egger, Joseph ; Carney, Patricia (Patty) ; Abraham, Linn ; Taplin, Stephen H. ; D'Orsi, Carl J. ; Barlow, William ; Elmore, Joann G. / Community-based mammography practice : Services, charges, and interpretation methods. In: American Journal of Roentgenology. 2005 ; Vol. 184, No. 2. pp. 433-438.
@article{d5223b4b488b464aaf5e7b170d05c9cb,
title = "Community-based mammography practice: Services, charges, and interpretation methods",
abstract = "OBJECTIVE. The purpose of our study was to accurately describe facility characteristics among community-based screening and diagnostic mammography practices in the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS. A survey was developed and applied to community-based facilities providing screening mammography in three geographically distinct locations in the states of Washington, Colorado, and New Hampshire. The facility survey was conducted between December 2001 and September 2002. Characteristics surveyed included facility type, services offered, charges for screening and diagnostic mammography, information systems, and interpretation methods, including the frequency of double interpretation. RESULTS. Among 45 responding facilities, services offered included screening mammography at all facilities, diagnostic mammography at 34 facilities (76{\%}), breast sonography at 30 (67{\%}), breast MRI at seven (16{\%}), and nuclear medicine breast scanning at seven (16{\%}). Most facilities surveyed were radiology practices in nonhospital settings. Eight facilities (18{\%}) reported performing clinical breast examinations routinely along with screening mammography. Only five screening sites (11{\%}) used computer-aided detection (CAD) and only two (5{\%}) used digital mammography. Nearly two thirds of facilities interpreted screening mammography examinations on-site, whereas 91{\%} of facilities interpreted diagnostic examinations on-site. Only three facilities (7{\%}) interpreted screening examinations on line as they were performed. Approximately half of facilities reported using some type of double interpretation, although the methods of double interpretation and the fraction of cases double-interpreted varied widely across facilities. On average, approximately 15{\%} of screening examinations and 10{\%} of diagnostic examinations were reported as being double-interpreted. CONCLUSION. Comparison of this survey's results with those collected a decade earlier indicates dramatic changes in the practice of mammography, including a clear distinction between screening and diagnostic mammography, batch interpretation of screening mammograms, and improved quality assurance and medical audit tools. Diffusion of new technologies such as CAD and digital mammography was not widespread. The methods of double-interpretation and the fraction of cases double-interpreted varied widely across study sites.",
author = "Hendrick, {R. Edward} and Cutter, {Gary R.} and Berns, {Eric A.} and Connie Nakano and Joseph Egger and Carney, {Patricia (Patty)} and Linn Abraham and Taplin, {Stephen H.} and D'Orsi, {Carl J.} and William Barlow and Elmore, {Joann G.}",
year = "2005",
month = "2",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "184",
pages = "433--438",
journal = "AJR. American journal of roentgenology",
issn = "0361-803X",
publisher = "American Roentgen Ray Society",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Community-based mammography practice

T2 - Services, charges, and interpretation methods

AU - Hendrick, R. Edward

AU - Cutter, Gary R.

AU - Berns, Eric A.

AU - Nakano, Connie

AU - Egger, Joseph

AU - Carney, Patricia (Patty)

AU - Abraham, Linn

AU - Taplin, Stephen H.

AU - D'Orsi, Carl J.

AU - Barlow, William

AU - Elmore, Joann G.

PY - 2005/2

Y1 - 2005/2

N2 - OBJECTIVE. The purpose of our study was to accurately describe facility characteristics among community-based screening and diagnostic mammography practices in the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS. A survey was developed and applied to community-based facilities providing screening mammography in three geographically distinct locations in the states of Washington, Colorado, and New Hampshire. The facility survey was conducted between December 2001 and September 2002. Characteristics surveyed included facility type, services offered, charges for screening and diagnostic mammography, information systems, and interpretation methods, including the frequency of double interpretation. RESULTS. Among 45 responding facilities, services offered included screening mammography at all facilities, diagnostic mammography at 34 facilities (76%), breast sonography at 30 (67%), breast MRI at seven (16%), and nuclear medicine breast scanning at seven (16%). Most facilities surveyed were radiology practices in nonhospital settings. Eight facilities (18%) reported performing clinical breast examinations routinely along with screening mammography. Only five screening sites (11%) used computer-aided detection (CAD) and only two (5%) used digital mammography. Nearly two thirds of facilities interpreted screening mammography examinations on-site, whereas 91% of facilities interpreted diagnostic examinations on-site. Only three facilities (7%) interpreted screening examinations on line as they were performed. Approximately half of facilities reported using some type of double interpretation, although the methods of double interpretation and the fraction of cases double-interpreted varied widely across facilities. On average, approximately 15% of screening examinations and 10% of diagnostic examinations were reported as being double-interpreted. CONCLUSION. Comparison of this survey's results with those collected a decade earlier indicates dramatic changes in the practice of mammography, including a clear distinction between screening and diagnostic mammography, batch interpretation of screening mammograms, and improved quality assurance and medical audit tools. Diffusion of new technologies such as CAD and digital mammography was not widespread. The methods of double-interpretation and the fraction of cases double-interpreted varied widely across study sites.

AB - OBJECTIVE. The purpose of our study was to accurately describe facility characteristics among community-based screening and diagnostic mammography practices in the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS. A survey was developed and applied to community-based facilities providing screening mammography in three geographically distinct locations in the states of Washington, Colorado, and New Hampshire. The facility survey was conducted between December 2001 and September 2002. Characteristics surveyed included facility type, services offered, charges for screening and diagnostic mammography, information systems, and interpretation methods, including the frequency of double interpretation. RESULTS. Among 45 responding facilities, services offered included screening mammography at all facilities, diagnostic mammography at 34 facilities (76%), breast sonography at 30 (67%), breast MRI at seven (16%), and nuclear medicine breast scanning at seven (16%). Most facilities surveyed were radiology practices in nonhospital settings. Eight facilities (18%) reported performing clinical breast examinations routinely along with screening mammography. Only five screening sites (11%) used computer-aided detection (CAD) and only two (5%) used digital mammography. Nearly two thirds of facilities interpreted screening mammography examinations on-site, whereas 91% of facilities interpreted diagnostic examinations on-site. Only three facilities (7%) interpreted screening examinations on line as they were performed. Approximately half of facilities reported using some type of double interpretation, although the methods of double interpretation and the fraction of cases double-interpreted varied widely across facilities. On average, approximately 15% of screening examinations and 10% of diagnostic examinations were reported as being double-interpreted. CONCLUSION. Comparison of this survey's results with those collected a decade earlier indicates dramatic changes in the practice of mammography, including a clear distinction between screening and diagnostic mammography, batch interpretation of screening mammograms, and improved quality assurance and medical audit tools. Diffusion of new technologies such as CAD and digital mammography was not widespread. The methods of double-interpretation and the fraction of cases double-interpreted varied widely across study sites.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=14744273784&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=14744273784&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 15671359

AN - SCOPUS:14744273784

VL - 184

SP - 433

EP - 438

JO - AJR. American journal of roentgenology

JF - AJR. American journal of roentgenology

SN - 0361-803X

IS - 2

ER -