Table 5 Section 2: Structural points, key issue 4: Quality Management
Key question: What does suitable quality management entail for the radiological care of polytrauma patients? | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
No | Statement(s) | Cons | Grade | Cons |
2.4.1 | Every radiological facility should establish targeted, individual quality management for the treatment of polytrauma | 100% strong | GPP A | 100% strong |
2.4.2 | Such quality management ought to define, monitor and continuously improve defined meaningful indicators | 100% strong | GPP B | 100% strong |
2.4.3 | Such a quality management ought to be integrated into and coordinated with a radiological as well as a clinical overall quality management | 86% normal | GPP B | 86% normal |
Literature: No literature search was conducted | ||||
Comments: Quality management has long been established in industry and is increasingly proving itself in medical applications. Quality management is desirable, but so far little suitable reliable information is available. More precise recommendation on quality management should be the subject of future research and also of radiological or clinical consensus conferences. As a first choice useful parameters may be: time-to CT-service; time of CT-service; time-to therapy; total dose; image quality; errors in first, second and third readings; number and frequency of morbidity and mortality conferences | ||||