Comparison of European (ESR) and American (ACR) White Papers on Teleradiology: Patient Primacy Is Paramount |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Jeroen Bosch Ziekenhuis, ’s-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands;2. Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts;3. Howard University Hospital, Washington, District of Columbia;4. Diagnostiek voor U, Eindhoven, The Netherlands;1. Duke Clinical Imaging Physics Group, Duke University Health System, Durham, North Carolina;2. Carl E. Ravin Advanced Imaging Laboratories, Duke Clinical Imaging Physics Group, Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina;1. Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas;2. American Board of Medical Specialties, Tucson, Arizona;1. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York;2. Rambam Healthcare Campus, Haifa, Israel;3. Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Bayview Campus, Toronto, Ontario, Canada;4. University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas;5. Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts;6. George Washington University Hospital, Washington, DC;7. Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania;8. The Old Vicarage. Worcester Park, United Kingdom;9. Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts;10. Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, St. Louis, Missouri;11. Columbia University, New York, New York;12. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota;13. University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland |
| |
| Abstract: | The ACR and European Society of Radiology white papers on teleradiology propose best practice guidelines for teleradiology, with each body focusing on its respective local situation, market, and legal regulations. The organizations have common viewpoints, the most important being patient primacy, maintenance of quality, and the “supplementary” position of teleradiology to local services. The major differences between the white papers are related mainly to the market situation, the use of teleradiology, teleradiologist credentialing and certification, the principles of “international” teleradiology, and the need to obtain “informed consent” from patients. The authors describe these similarities and differences by highlighting the background and context of teleradiology in Europe and the United States. |
| |
| Keywords: | Teleradiology teleradiologic services regulatory issues legal issues patient primacy Europe United States white paper |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
