Medical imaging-quality assessment and improvement system (QAISys)

• US 7,680,308 B2
• Filed: 05/10/2005
• Issued: 03/16/2010
• Est. Priority Date: 05/11/2004
• Status: Expired due to Fees

• Current Assignee: Richard B. Dale
• Original Assignee: Richard B. Dale
• Inventors: Dale, Richard B.
• Primary Examiner(s): Kim; Charles
• Application Number:
  US11/125,527
• Publication Number:
  US 20050256743A1
• Time in Patent Office: 1,771 Days
• Field of Search: None
• US Class Current: 382/128
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/00 Administration; Management
• CPC Class Codes: G16H 30/20 for handling medical images, e.g. DICOM, HL7 or PACS
• CPC Class Codes: G16H 30/40 for processing medical images, e.g. editing
• CPC Class Codes: G16H 40/20 for the management or administration of healthcare resources or facilities, e.g. managing hospital staff or surgery rooms
• CPC Class Codes: G16H 40/60 for the operation of medical equipment or devices
• CPC Class Codes: G16H 50/20 for computer-aided diagnosis, e.g. based on medical expert systems
• CPC Class Codes: Y10S 128/922 including image analysis

Abstract

The business method known as QAISys (Quality Assessment and Improvement System) is a process that rates comprehensively and continually the quality of medical images as determined by the interpreting radiologist. The output of this system conveys feedback from the radiologist to the performing technologist and his/her supervisor. This feedback enables medical radiologists, technologists, and managers to bridge any communication gaps between themselves in respect to the quality and effectiveness of medical images. It permits management to assess and track image quality for an entire medical imaging department by modality, location, and/or shift, and for each individual technologist. The QAISys method reveals the nature of recurrent quality failures and highlights which exam types need to be improved. QAISys then indicates practical, cost-effective means of assessing and improving the overall medical images for future patients.

Claims

1. A computer-implemented method for determining at least one cause for production of unsatisfactory medical images produced within a set of medical imaging exams, the method comprising:

(a) identifying one or more parameters capable of affecting said production of said unsatisfactory images;

(b) assigning dissatisfaction values to said unsatisfactory images wherein said assigning involves assigning dissatisfaction values reflecting levels of dissatisfaction;

(c) providing a computer generated correlation of a plurality of said dissatisfaction values for said set of medical imaging exams having a number of exams therein, and said one or more parameters identified to generate a numerical measure of dissatisfaction associated with said one or more parameters within said set of medical imaging exams; and

(d) assigning said cause for said unsatisfactory images to at least one parameter based on said measure of dissatisfaction for the purpose of improving image quality by taking a corrective action related to said cause;

wherein said providing a computer generated correlation involves generating a measure of dissatisfaction for said set of medical imaging exams which reflects a ratio of (a) a measure of dissatisfaction derived from said dissatisfaction values and (b) said number of exams within said set of medical imaging exams.

2. The method of claim 1, wherein said identifying includes identifying a nature of dissatisfaction as at least one parameter and said assigning cause for said unsatisfactory images involves assigning cause according to said nature of dissatisfaction.

3. The method of claim 1, wherein said identifying one or more parameters involves identifying one or more parameters selected from the group consisting of department, technologist, image modality, instrument, location, shift, time of day, exam type, and time interval.

4. The method of claim 3, wherein said assigning said cause involves choosing a measure of dissatisfaction selected from the group consisting of a dissatisfaction value, a dissatisfaction factor, an unsatisfactory rate, a satisfactory rate and a quality rating.

5. The method of claim 4, wherein said choosing involves selecting said quality rating and determining said quality rating from a formula comprising:

Quality Rating=(1−

df/ce)¹⁰

where df is a sum of said dissatisfaction values, and ce is a sum of completed exams within said set of exams.

6. The method of claim 3, wherein said providing involves generating a quality rating wherein said quality rating reflects said ratio factored exponentially.

7. The method of claim 1, wherein said computer implemented method is implemented with a computer that is not part of a computer network.

8. The method of claim 1, wherein said computer implemented method is implemented with a multi-computer network.