MR-IMAGING - QUALITY ASSESSMENT METHOD AND RATINGS AT 33 CENTERS

PURPOSE: To outline a quality assessment method with peer review for m agnetic resonance (MR) imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-three pr oviders in the Philadelphia area were rated on a random sample of 132 brain, 124 cervical spine, and 113 lower extremity MR imaging examinat ions performed during 1990. Blinded peer review was performed by panel s of three subspecialty-trained academic radiologists. Technical perfo rmance, completeness, and report appropriateness of each MR imaging ex amination were evaluated. Aggregated scores were calculated to rate pr ovider performance for each of the three parameters of quality. RESULT S: Two or three panelists assessed technical performance as inadequate in 15 cases, completeness as incomplete in 58 cases, and the interpre tative report as inappropriate and affecting treatment in 72 cases. El even providers received an unsatisfactory rating on one or more parame ters of quality. The association between unsatisfactory ratings and th e use of low-field-strength (less than or equal to 0.6-T) imagers was statistically significant (P < .008). CONCLUSION Substantial deficienc ies were identified in the performance of examinations and interpretat ion of MR images in the Philadelphia area in 1990. These findings indi cate the need for a program to monitor quality of MR imaging.