ULTRASONOGRAPHY QUALITY ASSURANCE FACTORS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24144/2077-6594.4.1.2022.277079Keywords:
quality of medical care, ultrasonography, survey of doctors, POCUSAbstract
The aim of the study actualization of the factors of ensuring the quality of work of an ultrasound doctor and their evaluation by practicing doctors.
Materials and methods. The research was conducted out in 2023 by anonymous electronic survey of ultrasonography doctors by using a specially developed questionnaire. The questionnaire contained 18 open and closed questions regarding various working aspects of medical practice.
Results. The rating of factors ensuring the medical services quality according to the assessments of ultrasound doctors has been updated. Problems of quality management in diagnostic departments of health care institutions are discussed.
Conclusions. Modern equipment and the opportunity to attend educational events are considered by doctors to be the most important factors, and the doctor’s age was rated the lowest among the proposed factors of providing quality medical care.
References
Institute of Medicine. Crossing the quality chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington: National Academy Press; 2001. 364 р.
Staver N, Caramella D. Successful quality management system in a radiology department. HealthManagement.org 2018;V. 18 (5): 405-407.
Hillman BJ, Amis ES, Neiman HL. The Future Quality and Safety of Medical Imaging. Proceedings of the Third Annual ACR FORUM: JAm Coll. Radiol. 2004;1:33-39.
Національне керівництво для лікарів, які направляють пацієнтів на радіологічні дослідження. Ред. Бабій Я.С., Бортний М.О., Дикан І.М. і інші.Київ: Медицина України. 2016.74 с.
National Radiology Quality Improvement Programme. 2nd National Data Report. Royal college of physicians of Ireland:1 JAN – 31 DEC 2020; 72 р.
Tao X, Li J, Gu Y, Ma L, Xu W, Wang R. et al. National Quality Improvement Program on Ultrasound Department in China. A Controlled Cohort Study of 1297 Public Hospitals. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2023;20:397. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20010397.
Богомаз ВМ, Динник ОБ, Могила ОІ. Проблеми забезпечення якості медичної допомоги за оцінкою лікарів ультразвукової діагностики. Променева діагностика, променева терапія. 2007; №1:74-79.
EFSUMB Clinical Practice Guidelines for Point-of-Care Ultrasound: Part One (Common Heart and Pulmonary Applications) .Long version. Ultraschall in Med. 2023.44(1):e1-e24. DOI 10.1055/a-1882-5615.
Point-of-Care Ultrasound, 2nd edition. Edited by Soni NJ, Arntfield R, Kory P. 2020: Elsevier; 502 p.
Nielsen MB, CantisanibV, Sidhu PS et al. The Use of Handheld Ultrasound Devices – An EFSUMB Position Paper. Ultraschall in Med 2019; 40: 30–39. doi.org/10.1055/a-0783-2303.
Welle R. Seufferlein T, Kratzer W. Current state of under – and postgraduate education in abdominal ultrasonography at German university hospitals. A panel study over 20 years. Z. Gastroenterol. 2021; 9:225–240.
Sorrentino K. Quality Improvement Initiatives in Sonography Education. A Review of the Literature. Journal of Diagnostic Medical Sonography 2021; Vol. 37(5): 473–480.
Dick J, Darras KE, Lexa FJ, et al. An International Survey of Quality and Safety Programs in Radiology. Can Assoc Radiol J. 2021 Feb;72(1):135-141. doi: 10.1177/0846537119899195. Epub 2020 Feb 18; PMID: 32066249.
Weber MA, Delorme S. Sonografische Weiterbildung auf dem Weg zum radiologischen Facharzt. Konzepte und Herausforderungen [Ultrasound training in the professional development of radiological specialists. Concepts and challenges]. Radiologe. 2017 Nov; 57(11):967-972. German. doi: 10.1007/s00117-017-0307-y. PMID: 28956080.
Degenhardt F, Frenz J-P, Harms A. Manual Mammasonographie. Georg Thieme Verlag: Stuttgart; 171 р.
