Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Paul A. Larson.
Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging | 2013
Emanuel Kanal; A. James Barkovich; Charlotte Bell; James P. Borgstede; William G. Bradley; Jerry W. Froelich; J. Rod Gimbel; John Gosbee; Ellisa Kuhni-Kaminski; Paul A. Larson; James W. Lester; John A. Nyenhuis; Daniel Joe Schaefer; Elizabeth Sebek; Jeffrey C. Weinreb; Bruce L. Wilkoff; Terry O. Woods; Leonard Lucey; Dina Hernandez
Because there are many potential risks in the MR environment and reports of adverse incidents involving patients, equipment and personnel, the need for a guidance document on MR safe practices emerged. Initially published in 2002, the ACR MR Safe Practices Guidelines established de facto industry standards for safe and responsible practices in clinical and research MR environments. As the MR industry changes the document is reviewed, modified and updated. The most recent version will reflect these changes. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2013;37:501–530.
Journal of The American College of Radiology | 2009
Valerie P. Jackson; Trudie Cushing; Hani H. Abujudeh; James P. Borgstede; Kenneth W. Chin; Charles K. Grimes; David B. Larson; Paul A. Larson; Robert S. Pyatt; William T. Thorwarth
The ACRs RADPEER program began in 2002; the electronic version, e-RADPEER, was offered in 2005. To date, more than 10,000 radiologists and more than 800 groups are participating in the program. Since the inception of RADPEER, there have been continuing discussions regarding a number of issues, including the scoring system, the subspecialty-specific subcategorization of data collected for each imaging modality, and the validation of interfacility scoring consistency. This white paper reviews the task force discussions, the literature review, and the new recommended scoring process and lexicon for RADPEER.
Journal of The American College of Radiology | 2008
John A. Patti; Jonathan W. Berlin; Albert L. Blumberg; R. Nick Bryan; Fred Gaschen; Brenda M. Izzi; Paul A. Larson; Jonathan S. Lewin; Lawrence A. Liebscher
Radiologists represent arguably one of medicines least heralded but most important specialties. Although they carry sterling credentials as imaging and radiation safety experts, radiologists have lacked widespread public recognition. As public and private stakeholders cast an even more intense spotlight on imaging, the vital role of radiologists must be better understood. During the January 2008 ACR Forum on Future Practice Models for Radiology, participants and ACR leaders discussed the value added that radiologists bring to the health care enterprise and recommended that the ACR further study that topic. The ACR, dedicated to providing quality patient care since its inception in 1924, convened the Task Force on Value Added to address these issues. The task force determined the component stakeholders in the health care enterprise to whom value is added, defined the nature of the value for each constituent component, described the process of adding that value, and anticipated future trends that may affect the value proposition. Recommendations to the ACR for future action are offered.
Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology | 2010
Michael J. Wallace; Kenneth W. Chin; Thomas B. Fletcher; Curtis W. Bakal; John F. Cardella; Clement J. Grassi; John D. Grizzard; Alan D. Kaye; David C. Kushner; Paul A. Larson; Lawrence A. Liebscher; Patrick R. Luers; Matthew A. Mauro; Sanjoy Kundu
THE membership of the Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR) Standards of Practice Committee represents experts in a broad spectrum of interventional procedures from both the private and academic sectors of medicine. Generally Standards of Practice Committee members dedicate the vast majority of their professional time to performing interventional procedures; as such they represent a valid broad expert constituency of the subject matter under consideration for standards production. Technical documents specifying the exact consensus and literature review
Journal of The American College of Radiology | 2008
Arthur E. Stillman; Geoffrey D. Rubin; Shawn D. Teague; Richard D. White; Pamela K. Woodard; Paul A. Larson
With the growing use of electronic medical records, the trend of diagnostic imaging reporting is toward a more structured format. Advantages include improved quality and consistency of the reporting and ease of data mining. The essential elements of a structured report are provided and illustrated for coronary artery computed tomographic angiograms.
Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine | 2008
Harris L. Cohen; John P. McGahan; Barbara S. Hertzberg; Jon W. Meilstrup; Laurence Needleman; Beverly E. Hashimoto; W. Dennis Foley; Ronald R. Townsend; Mary Frates; Bryann Bromley; Teresita L. Angtuaco; Marie De Lange; Brian Garra; Stephen Hoffenberg; Richard Jaffe; Alfred B. Kurtz; Joan M. Mastrobattista; Jon Meilstrup; William D. Middleton; Thomas R. Nelson; David M. Paushter; Cindy Rapp; Michelle L. Robbin; Henrietta Kotlus Rosenberg; Eugene C. Toy; Lami Yeo; Julie K. Timins; Bill H. Warren; Albert L. Blumberg; Mary C. Frates
These guidelines are an educational tool designed to assist practitioners in providing appropriate radiologic care for patients. They are not inflexible rules or requirements of practice and are not intended, nor should they be used, to establish a legal standard of care. For these reasons and those set forth below, the American College of Radiology cautions against the use of these guidelines in litigation in which the clinical decisions of a practitioner are called into question.
Journal of The American College of Radiology | 2011
Paul A. Larson; Robert S. Pyatt; Charles K. Grimes; Hani H. Abudujeh; Kenneth W. Chin; Christopher J. Roth
RADPEER™ is a quality assessment and improvement product developed and marketed by the ACR. Although the program has been available since 2002 and the scoring system was revised in 2009, the ACR allows considerable flexibility in its implementation. Although that flexibility supports the local needs of radiology groups using the program, it also may lead to suboptimal implementation of the program and may limit the usefulness of the data obtained. The authors, who are members of the ACR RADPEER Committee, provide 11 specific suggestions to optimize the performance of RADPEER and suggest opportunities for future improvement of the program.
Journal of The American College of Radiology | 2012
Lawrence A. Liebscher; Cynthia S. Sherry; Jonathan Breslau; Gerald D. Dodd; Howard B. Fleishon; Paul A. Larson; Carolyn C. Meltzer; Richard Strax
An ACR task force investigated the changing roles of general and subspecialized radiologists in current academic and private practice settings. The task force considered historical factors that influenced the evolution of current practice models and evaluated recent socioeconomic trends that will influence the future of radiology practices. The task force proposes a new model of multispecialty radiologists as an exciting and viable option to help build robust future academic and private radiology practices.
Annals of Emergency Medicine | 2014
Paul Sierzenski; Otha Linton; E. Stephen Amis; D. Mark Courtney; Paul A. Larson; Mahadevappa Mahesh; Robert A. Novelline; Donald P. Frush; Fred A. Mettler; Julie K. Timins; Thomas S. Tenforde; John D. Boice; James A. Brink; Jerrold T. Bushberg; David A. Schauer
Availability, reliability, and technical improvements have led to continued expansion of computed tomography (CT) imaging. During a CT scan, there is substantially more exposure to ionizing radiation than with conventional radiography. This has led to questions and critical conclusions about whether the continuous growth of CT scans should be subjected to review and potentially restraints or, at a minimum, closer investigation. This is particularly pertinent to populations in emergency departments, such as children and patients who receive repeated CT scans for benign diagnoses. During the last several decades, among national medical specialty organizations, the American College of Emergency Physicians and the American College of Radiology have each formed membership working groups to consider value, access, and expedience and to promote broad acceptance of CT protocols and procedures within their disciplines. Those efforts have had positive effects on the use criteria for CT by other physician groups, health insurance carriers, regulators, and legislators.
Journal of The American College of Radiology | 2010
Cynthia S. Sherry; Richard B. Gunderman; William Herrington; Leonard Berlin; Paul A. Larson; Lawrence R. Muroff
The vast majority of US radiologists are affiliated with hospital-based group practices, making professional relationships between radiologists and hospitals one of the most crucial factors for a successful practice. However, tensions between radiology groups and hospitals have been increasing and have led to some well-publicized breakdowns. The ACR Task Force on Relationships Between Radiology Groups and Hospitals and Other Healthcare Organizations was charged to identify key factors affecting these relationships and to make recommendations and propose positive steps that could improve relationships and benefit radiologists, hospitals, and patients.