Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the current (2001-2002) capacity of community-based mammography facilities to deliver screening and diagnostic services in the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approvals and patient consent were obtained. A mailed survey was sent to 53 eligible mammography facilities in three states (Washington, New Hampshire, and Colorado). Survey questions assessed equipment and staffing availability, as well as appointment waiting times for screening and diagnostic mammography services. Criterion-related content and construct validity were obtained first by means of a national advisory committee of academic, scientific, and clinical colleagues in mammography that reviewed literature on existing surveys and second by pilot testing a series of draft surveys among community mammography facilities not inclusive of the study facilities. The final survey results were independently double entered into a relational database with programmed data checks. The data were sent encrypted by means of file transfer protocol to a central analytical center at Group Health Cooperative. A two-sided P value with α = .05 was considered to show statistical significance in all analyses. RESULTS: Forty-five of 53 eligible mammography facilities (85%) returned the survey. Shortages of radiologists relative to the mammographic volume were found in 44% of mammography facilities overall, with shortages of radiologists higher in not-for-profit versus for-profit facilities (60% vs 28% reported). Shortages of Mammography Quality Standards Act-qualified technologists were reported by 20% of facilities, with 46% reporting some level of difficulty in maintaining qualified technologists. Waiting times for diagnostic mammography ranged from less than 1 week to 4 weeks, with 85% performed within 1 week. Waiting times for screening mammography ranged from less than 1 week to 8 weeks, with 59% performed between 1 week and 4 weeks. Waiting times for both diagnostic and screening services were two to three times higher in high-volume compared with low-volume facilities. CONCLUSION: Survey results show shortages of radiologists and certified mammography technologists.
| Original language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 391-395 |
| Number of pages | 5 |
| Journal | Radiology |
| Volume | 235 |
| Issue number | 2 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - May 1 2005 |
| Externally published | Yes |
Fingerprint
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Radiological and Ultrasound Technology
Cite this
Current realities of delivering mammography services in the community : Do challenges with staffing and scheduling exist? / D'Orsi, Carl; Tu, Shin-Ping; Nakano, Connie; Carney, Patricia A.; Abraham, Linn A.; Taplin, Stephen H.; Hendrick, R. Edward; Cutter, Gary R.; Berns, Eric; Barlow, William E.; Elmore, Joann G.
In: Radiology, Vol. 235, No. 2, 01.05.2005, p. 391-395.Research output: Contribution to journal › Review article
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Current realities of delivering mammography services in the community
T2 - Do challenges with staffing and scheduling exist?
AU - D'Orsi, Carl
AU - Tu, Shin-Ping
AU - Nakano, Connie
AU - Carney, Patricia A.
AU - Abraham, Linn A.
AU - Taplin, Stephen H.
AU - Hendrick, R. Edward
AU - Cutter, Gary R.
AU - Berns, Eric
AU - Barlow, William E.
AU - Elmore, Joann G.
PY - 2005/5/1
Y1 - 2005/5/1
N2 - PURPOSE: To evaluate the current (2001-2002) capacity of community-based mammography facilities to deliver screening and diagnostic services in the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approvals and patient consent were obtained. A mailed survey was sent to 53 eligible mammography facilities in three states (Washington, New Hampshire, and Colorado). Survey questions assessed equipment and staffing availability, as well as appointment waiting times for screening and diagnostic mammography services. Criterion-related content and construct validity were obtained first by means of a national advisory committee of academic, scientific, and clinical colleagues in mammography that reviewed literature on existing surveys and second by pilot testing a series of draft surveys among community mammography facilities not inclusive of the study facilities. The final survey results were independently double entered into a relational database with programmed data checks. The data were sent encrypted by means of file transfer protocol to a central analytical center at Group Health Cooperative. A two-sided P value with α = .05 was considered to show statistical significance in all analyses. RESULTS: Forty-five of 53 eligible mammography facilities (85%) returned the survey. Shortages of radiologists relative to the mammographic volume were found in 44% of mammography facilities overall, with shortages of radiologists higher in not-for-profit versus for-profit facilities (60% vs 28% reported). Shortages of Mammography Quality Standards Act-qualified technologists were reported by 20% of facilities, with 46% reporting some level of difficulty in maintaining qualified technologists. Waiting times for diagnostic mammography ranged from less than 1 week to 4 weeks, with 85% performed within 1 week. Waiting times for screening mammography ranged from less than 1 week to 8 weeks, with 59% performed between 1 week and 4 weeks. Waiting times for both diagnostic and screening services were two to three times higher in high-volume compared with low-volume facilities. CONCLUSION: Survey results show shortages of radiologists and certified mammography technologists.
AB - PURPOSE: To evaluate the current (2001-2002) capacity of community-based mammography facilities to deliver screening and diagnostic services in the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approvals and patient consent were obtained. A mailed survey was sent to 53 eligible mammography facilities in three states (Washington, New Hampshire, and Colorado). Survey questions assessed equipment and staffing availability, as well as appointment waiting times for screening and diagnostic mammography services. Criterion-related content and construct validity were obtained first by means of a national advisory committee of academic, scientific, and clinical colleagues in mammography that reviewed literature on existing surveys and second by pilot testing a series of draft surveys among community mammography facilities not inclusive of the study facilities. The final survey results were independently double entered into a relational database with programmed data checks. The data were sent encrypted by means of file transfer protocol to a central analytical center at Group Health Cooperative. A two-sided P value with α = .05 was considered to show statistical significance in all analyses. RESULTS: Forty-five of 53 eligible mammography facilities (85%) returned the survey. Shortages of radiologists relative to the mammographic volume were found in 44% of mammography facilities overall, with shortages of radiologists higher in not-for-profit versus for-profit facilities (60% vs 28% reported). Shortages of Mammography Quality Standards Act-qualified technologists were reported by 20% of facilities, with 46% reporting some level of difficulty in maintaining qualified technologists. Waiting times for diagnostic mammography ranged from less than 1 week to 4 weeks, with 85% performed within 1 week. Waiting times for screening mammography ranged from less than 1 week to 8 weeks, with 59% performed between 1 week and 4 weeks. Waiting times for both diagnostic and screening services were two to three times higher in high-volume compared with low-volume facilities. CONCLUSION: Survey results show shortages of radiologists and certified mammography technologists.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=20244384408&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=20244384408&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1148/radiol.2352040132
DO - 10.1148/radiol.2352040132
M3 - Review article
C2 - 15798153
AN - SCOPUS:20244384408
VL - 235
SP - 391
EP - 395
JO - Radiology
JF - Radiology
SN - 0033-8419
IS - 2
ER -