MR imaging: quality assessment method and ratings at 33 centers.
OBJECTIVE
To outline a quality assessment method with peer review for magnetic resonance (MR) imaging.


METHODS
Thirty-three providers in the Philadelphia area were rated on a random sample of 132 brain, 124 cervical spine, and 113 lower extremity MR imaging examinations performed during 1990. Blinded peer review was performed by panels of three subspecialty-trained academic radiologists. Technical performance, completeness, and report appropriateness of each MR imaging examination were evaluated. Aggregated scores were calculated to rate provider performance for each of the three parameters of quality.


RESULTS
Two or three panelists assessed technical performance as inadequate in 15 cases, completeness as incomplete in 58 cases, and the interpretative report as inappropriate and affecting treatment in 72 cases. Eleven providers received an unsatisfactory rating on one or more parameters of quality. The association between unsatisfactory ratings and the use of low-field-strength (< or = 0.6-T) imagers was statistically significant (P < .008).


CONCLUSIONS
Substantial deficiencies were identified in the performance of examinations and interpretation of MR images in the Philadelphia area in 1990. These findings indicate the need for a program to monitor quality of MR imaging.
Friedman
D P
DP
Department of Radiology, Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, PA 19107, USA.
Rosetti
G F
GF
Flanders
A E
AE
Piccoli
C W
CW
Rao
V M
VM
Mitchell
D G
DG
Tartaglino
L M
LM
Gonzalez
C F
CF
Schweitzer
M E
ME
Mishkin
M M
MM
D001921:Brain / Q000473:pathology; D006268:Health Facilities; D006801:Humans; D007866:Leg / Q000473:pathology; D008279:Magnetic Resonance Imaging / Q000592:standards*; D015588:Observer Variation; D011785:Quality Assurance, Health Care; D013131:Spine / Q000473:pathology