Quality Assurance of Mammogram Training Courses via Questionnaire : Fifth Report

DOI 8 Citations 8 References
  • Kotsuma Yoshikazu
    Central Committee for Quality Control of Mammographic Screening, Subcommittee for Education
  • Endo Tokiko
    Central Committee for Quality Control of Mammographic Screening, Subcommittee for Education
  • Iwase Takushi
    Central Committee for Quality Control of Mammographic Screening, Subcommittee for Education
  • Ohnuki Koji
    Central Committee for Quality Control of Mammographic Screening, Subcommittee for Education
  • Nagai Hiroshi
    Central Committee for Quality Control of Mammographic Screening, Subcommittee for Education
  • Tohno Eriko
    Central Committee for Quality Control of Mammographic Screening, Subcommittee for Education
  • Tsunoda Hiroko
    Central Committee for Quality Control of Mammographic Screening, Subcommittee for Education
  • Ohmura Mineo
    Central Committee for Quality Control of Mammographic Screening, Subcommittee for Education
  • Masuda Norikazu
    Central Committee for Quality Control of Mammographic Screening, Subcommittee for Education Collaborators
  • Nakatani Shuichi
    Central Committee for Quality Control of Mammographic Screening, Subcommittee for Education Collaborators
  • Morimoto Tadaoki
    Central Committee for Quality Control of Mammographic Screening, Subcommittee for Education

Bibliographic Information

Other Title
  • アンケート調査によるマンモグラフィ読影講習会の精度管理　［５］

Search this article

Description

Subsequent to the fourth report, 12 mammogram training courses were held in 2001. Among them, 5 courses were ranked α, 4 as β, and 3 as γ. Only 5 courses (42% of the total including 3α, and 2 β) satisfied the requirements for film reading tests as outlined in the second report. As a group, the test results were worse than those of the 11 courses examined in the third report, suggesting that training course planning and management need to be restructured. Since 2001, questionnaires have been computerized to speed collation and analysis of results and provide immediate feedback to the instructors. The instructors and assistant instructors participating in the lectures and workshops were also given questionnaires at 22 courses to determine whether improvement of instructor competence is important for control of course quality. The results obtained are reported here. There were a total of 182 instructors and 117 assistant instructors, of whom 89 (49 %) and 72 (62%) answered the questionnaire, respectively. Thirty-six percent of the instructors and 56% of the assistant instructors indicated that preliminary meetings for the workshops were inadequate or not held. Only 20% of the assistant instructors felt they were sufficiently competent. To raise the level of the workshops, it appears that assistant instructors, who have less teaching experience than instructors, need more preparation. Preliminary meetings, prompt analysis of the questionnaires with immediate on-site feedback to the instructors, and review meetings, some of which have been implemented at recent courses, are necessary to maintain the proficiency of instructors and assistant instructors.

Journal

Citations (8)*help

See more

References(8)*help

See more

Keywords

Details 詳細情報について

Report a problem

Back to top