Quality Measurements in Radiology: A Systematic Review of the Literature and Survey of Radiology Benefit Management Groups

Anand Narayan, Christina Cinelli, John A. Carrino, Paul Nagy, Josef Coresh, Victoria G. Riese, Daniel J. Durand

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


Purpose As the US health care system transitions toward value-based reimbursement, there is an increasing need for metrics to quantify health care quality. Within radiology, many quality metrics are in use, and still more have been proposed, but there have been limited attempts to systematically inventory these measures and classify them using a standard framework. The purpose of this study was to develop an exhaustive inventory of public and private sector imaging quality metrics classified according to the classic Donabedian framework (structure, process, and outcome). Methods A systematic review was performed in which eligibility criteria included published articles (from 2000 onward) from multiple databases. Studies were double-read, with discrepancies resolved by consensus. For the radiology benefit management group (RBM) survey, the six known companies nationally were surveyed. Outcome measures were organized on the basis of standard categories (structure, process, and outcome) and reported using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Results The search strategy yielded 1,816 citations; review yielded 110 reports (29 included for final analysis). Three of six RBMs (50%) responded to the survey; the websites of the other RBMs were searched for additional metrics. Seventy-five unique metrics were reported: 35 structure (46%), 20 outcome (27%), and 20 process (27%) metrics. For RBMs, 35 metrics were reported: 27 structure (77%), 4 process (11%), and 4 outcome (11%) metrics. The most commonly cited structure, process, and outcome metrics included ACR accreditation (37%), ACR Appropriateness Criteria (85%), and peer review (95%), respectively. Conclusions Imaging quality metrics are more likely to be structural (46%) than process (27%) or outcome (27%) based (P <.05). As national value-based reimbursement programs increasingly emphasize outcome-based metrics, radiologists must keep pace by developing the data infrastructure required to collect outcome-based quality metrics.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1173-1181.e23
JournalJournal of the American College of Radiology
Issue number11
StatePublished - 2015


  • Quality measurements
  • imaging
  • measures
  • metrics
  • radiology
  • radiology benefit management groups

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging


Dive into the research topics of 'Quality Measurements in Radiology: A Systematic Review of the Literature and Survey of Radiology Benefit Management Groups'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this