This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Online Appendix Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Douglas, P. S. Articles by Peterson, E. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Douglas, P. S. Articles by Peterson, E.

Achieving Quality in Cardiovascular Imaging II

Proceedings From the Second American College of Cardiology–Duke University Medical Center Think Tank on Quality in Cardiovascular Imaging

Pamela S. Douglas, MD, MACC, FASE, FAHA^_*,_*, Jersey Chen, MD, Linda Gillam, MD, FACC, Robert Hendel, MD, FACC, W. Gregory Hundley, MD, FACC^||, Frederick Masoudi, MD, FACC^¶, Manesh R. Patel, MD^_*, Eric Peterson, MD, FACC, FAHA^_*

^_* Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina
Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
Department of Cardiology, Columbia University, New York, New York
MidWest Heart Specialists, Winfield, Illinois
^|| Department of Cardiology, Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center, Winston-Salem, North Carolina
^¶ Division of Cardiology, Denver Health Medical Center, Denver, Colorado

^_* Reprint requests and correspondence: Dr. Pamela S. Douglas, 7022 North Pavilion DUMC, P.O. Box 17969, Durham, North Carolina 27715 (Email: pamela.douglas{at}duke.edu).

Despite rapid technologic advances and sustained growth, less attention has been focused on quality in imaging than in other areas of cardiovascular medicine. To address this deficit, representatives from cardiovascular imaging societies, private payers, government agencies, the medical imaging industry, and experts in quality measurement met in the second Quality in Cardiovascular Imaging Think Tank. The participants endorsed the previous consensus definition of quality in imaging and proposed quality measures. Additional areas of needed effort included data standardization and structured reporting, appropriateness criteria, imaging registries, laboratory accreditation, partnership development, and imaging research. The second American College of Cardiology–Duke University Think Tank continued the process of the development, dissemination, and adoption of quality improvement initiatives for all cardiovascular imaging modalities.

Key Words: cardiovascular imaging • quality • appropriateness • health outcomes