Safety and Quality in Healthcare Radiology
Introduction
The Federal Government has an upper hand in managing the healthcare systems within its jurisdictions. This has been successfully implemented through the sharing of responsibilities among various professional bodies formed to protect the specific healthcare interest of the populations. Various professional disciplines within the health sector have formed consortiums and associations in order to provide advanced and scientifically supported operational procedures and protocols. Positive prognosis and quality assurance are the major interest of the Federal government in healthcare procedures and innovative, technology powered supportive decision-making systems. This has led to the promulgation of various sets of laws and legislation, including situations of constitutional amendments and policy formulations to support best practices within the legal system supportive of the healthcare sector.
Radiology is one among such healthcare departments that have been under strict scrutiny to ensure quality and value of the imaging system, add value to the patients involved. The Federal Government has facilitated the formations of oversight associations within the radiology departments and the health imaging industry to ensure safety and accuracy is attained in their operational processes. This paper analyses the progress made in radiology and the medical imaging industry in order to attain safety and quality while aiding in the correct early diagnosis of health problems so as to aid clinical experts in their early resolution.
Defining Quality and value aspects in Radiology
The radiology sector has continued to present various developments in its research and development geared towards effective health problem determinations. The article “Are quality initiatives in radiology trying to measure the immeasurable?” by Dan Harvey bringing out newer frontiers in the diagnosis of Paralysis, by Analysis, provides a systemic growth of research and technology into the knowledge and resources of medical radiology in the world (Harvey, 2017). The article brings out an immense breakthrough in speeding up the interpretational similarities and value priorities in radiology case situations in healthcare management.
Defining value in radiology has been a challenge and a hot topic of discussion within the health imaging sector (Muenzel, Fingerle, Zahel, Sauter, Vlassenbroek, Dobritz, & Noël, 2017). This aspect brings out the process of result interpretation and accurate diagnosis, which are tested on a case to case examination. Harvey (2017) through his article, asserts that value in radiology should be analyzed through economic and quality-related metrics. Conversely, this aspect exonerates that value viewpoints from the medical discipline, which, according to him, experiences the difficulty in determination.
The discussions of Harvey (2017) Are quality initiatives in radiology trying to measure the immeasurable? Are in concurrence with the objectives that the federal government envisaged during the inceptions process and procedures to oversee the hazardous activities like radium poisoning in 1920. This was subsequently followed by the establishment of the Division of Radiological Health in 1958 so as to conduct research and training in the radiology and the quality and value it projects in the healthcare sector (Institute of Medicine (US), 1996). Harvey (2017) construction today as carried in his article, explains that quality management in radiology looms large in the equation, while, the determination of optimal quality and value processes has remained a substantial challenge. Discussions in the article agree with the position that there’s an inherent subjectivity related to quality. This implies that everyone has their own set of quantitative measures of quality, especially in focus to the imaging sector.
Value Aspects of Radiology
There is a form of obsolescence in the models used to determine value in radiology, especially in regards to healthcare interpretations and decision making systems. An example is provided in the article by Harvey (2017) Jeffrey D. Robinson, MD, MBA, FACR, an assistant professor of emergency radiology in the department of radiology at the University of Washington explains that CT pulmonary angiography, often performed when a patient is suspected to have pulmonary embolism (PE). Expert Medical observations often realized that a majority of patients suspected of PE project negative results on the test. Varied opinion, therefore, observe that given the negative results in the diagnosis, the value is not added to the patients, while other expert opinions dissent. The facts in disharmony, however, expressed by experts are that value is added in every process of radiology since the patient is able to confirm that he/she doesn’t have PE or any health challenge subjected to the process of imaging (Muenzel, et al., 2017). Therefore, negative and positive tests in radiology provide empirical value to the patient (Harvey, 2017).
Conclusion
Quality and value are important factors in medical radiology investigations. These factors should be complemented by expert diagnosis requests from practitioners. The paper outlines quality aspects of radiology that should lead to a similar result interpretation when scans are exposed, several radiologists. It is important that accuracy is attained in radiological interpretations. Keenness thus is the first considerations so as to capture all including the simplest iota of a problem. Sensitivity and specificity is key in radiology. It is, therefore, of significance that a quality and value metric is developed in radiology so as to deliver quality and value, but not degenerate into over analysis and over-intellectualizing the process in radiology.
