Author + information
- Received August 3, 2015
- Revision received November 6, 2015
- Accepted November 11, 2015
- Published online March 1, 2016.
- Mehdi Eskandari, MDa,b,
- Christopher M. Kramer, MDc,
- Harvey S. Hecht, MDd,
- Wael A. Jaber, MDe and
- Thomas H. Marwick, MBBS, PhD, MPHa,∗ ()
- aMenzies Institute for Medical Research, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia
- bKing’s College Hospital, London, United Kingdom
- cUniversity of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia
- dMount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, New York
- eCleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio
- ↵∗Reprint requests and correspondence:
Dr. Thomas H. Marwick, Menzies Institute for Medical Research, 17 Liverpool Street, Hobart, Tas 7000, Australia.
Quality control is pervasive in most modern business, but, surprisingly, is in its infancy in medicine in general—and cardiovascular imaging in particular. The increasing awareness of the cost of cardiovascular imaging, matched by a desire to show benefits from imaging to patient outcome, suggests that this deficiency should be reassessed. Demonstration of improved quality has been proposed to require a focus on several domains: laboratory organization, patient selection, image acquisition, image interpretation, and results communication. Improvement in these steps will require adoption of a variety of interventions, including laboratory accreditation, appropriate use criteria, and continuous quality control and enhancements in reporting, but the evidence base for the benefit of interventions on these steps has been sparse. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the current status and future goals of developing the evidence base for these processes in cardiovascular imaging.
The authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose.
- Received August 3, 2015.
- Revision received November 6, 2015.
- Accepted November 11, 2015.
- American College of Cardiology Foundation