Advertisement

Journal of Nuclear Cardiology

, Volume 25, Issue 6, pp 2044–2052 | Cite as

Improving compliance with Intersocietal Accreditation Commission (IAC) reporting standards: A serial comparison of 523 labs over seven years

  • P. Timothy Maddux
  • Mary Beth Farrell
  • Joseph A. Ewing
  • Peter L. Tilkemeier
Original Article

Abstract

Background

The aim of this study was to evaluate reporting compliance of laboratories applying for serial accreditation by the Intersocietal Accreditation Commission (IAC) and compare compliance based on laboratory characteristics.

Methods

All laboratories applying for IAC accreditation for the first time in 2008 and then twice more (2011-2014) were evaluated for compliance with 18 reporting elements. The elements were ranked into three severity groups (high/moderate/low).

Results

Reports from 523 laboratories were evaluated. The percentage of laboratories with reporting issues by cycle was 66.2% for cycle 1, 36.7% for cycle 2, and 43.8% for cycle 3 (p < .001). For most of the 18 elements, there was a significant decrease in the percentage of labs with issues. Less moderate and high severity errors were seen over time. Also, the mean non-compliant elements per laboratory decreased from 5.78 ± 2.72 at cycle 1, down to 1.25 ± 1.77 at cycle 3.

Conclusions

In facilities applying for 3 consecutive IAC accreditation cycles, reporting compliance with IAC Standards improved between cycles 1-2 and 1-3. No significant improvement occurred between cycles 2-3. Although the quality of reports improved overall, problems remain in quantifying myocardial perfusion defects, documenting report approval date, and integrating stress and imaging reports.

Keywords

Nuclear cardiology reporting compliance accreditation Intersocietal Accreditation Commission 

Abbreviations

ASNC

American Society of Nuclear Cardiology

CBNC

Certification Board of Nuclear Cardiology

IAC

Intersocietal Accreditation Commission

MPI

Myocardial perfusion imaging

Notes

Author Contributions

Study concept and design: Tilkemeier and Farrell. Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors. Drafting of the manuscript: All authors. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors. Statistical analysis: Ewing. Obtained funding: Not applicable. Administrative, technical, or material support: Farrell. Study supervision: Tilkemeier and Farrell.

Disclosure

Farrell is an employee of the Intersocietal Accreditation Commission. Maddux, Ewing, and Tilkemeier have no conflicts of interest. No financial support was received for this research.

Supplementary material

12350_2017_904_MOESM1_ESM.docx (15 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 14 kb)
12350_2017_904_MOESM2_ESM.pptx (290 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (PPTX 291 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Cerqueira MD. The user-friendly nuclear cardiology report: What needs to be considered and what is included. J Nucl Cardiol. 1996;3:350-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tilkemeier PL, Cooke CD, Grossman GB, McCallister BD, Ward RP. Standardized reporting of radionuclide myocardial perfusion and function. J Nucl Cardiol. 2009;16:650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    The IAC Standards and Guidelines for Nuclear/PET Accreditation. Ellicott City, MD: Intersocietal Accreditation Commission; 2012:47.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Holly TA, Abbott BG, Al-Mallah M, et al. Single photon-emission computed tomography. J Nucl Cardiol. 2010;17:941-73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tilkemeier PL, Serber ER, Farrell MB. The nuclear cardiology report: Problems, predictors, and improvement. A report from the ICANL database. J Nucl Cardiol. 2011;18:858-68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    U.S. Census Bureau, Economic Census: Regions and Divisions. http://www.census.gov/econ/census/help/geography/regions_and_divisions.html. Accessed 14 Aug 2014.
  7. 7.
    Intersocietal Accreditation Commission Policies and Procedures 2015. http://www.intersocietal.org/iac/legal/policies.htm Accessed 21 June 2016.
  8. 8.
    Franc B, Cohen J. Diagnostic error in medicine: A critical role for diagnostic imaging in finding and facilitating solutions. Appl Radiol. 2014;43:3-4.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    H.R. 6331 - 110th Congress: Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008” Rangel C, trans. 110th ed2008.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    McLoughlin RF, So CB, Gray RR, Brandt R. Radiology reports: How much descriptive detail is enough? Am J Roentgenol. 1995;165:803-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gunderman R, Ambrosius WT, Cohen M. Radiology reporting in an academic children’s hospital: What referring physicians think. Pediatr Radiol. 2000;30:307-14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lafortune M, Breton G, Baudouin JL. The radiological report: What is useful for the referring physician? Can Assoc Radiol J. 1988;39:140-3.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tragardh E, Hoglund P, Ohlsson M, Wieloch M, Edenbrandt L. Referring physicians underestimate the extent of abnormalities in final reports from myocardial perfusion imaging. EJNMMI Res. 2012;2:27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hachamovitch R, Rozanski A, Shaw LJ, et al. Impact of ischaemia and scar on the therapeutic benefit derived from myocardial revascularization vs. medical therapy among patients undergoing stress-rest myocardial perfusion scintigraphy. Eur Heart J. 2011;32:1012-24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Reiner BI. Strategies for radiology reporting and communication. Part 1: Challenges and heightened expectations. J Digit Imaging. 2013;26:610-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pool F, Goergen S. Quality of the written radiology report: A review of the literaure. J Am Coll Radiol. 2010;8:634-43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Graber ML. The incidence of diagnostic error in medicine. BMJ Qual Saf. 2013;22 Suppl 2:ii21-ii27.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Goddard P, Leslie A, Jones A, Wakeley C, Kabala J. Error in radiology. Br J Radiol. 2001;74:949-51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Renfrew DL. E A Franken J, Berbaum KS, Weigelt FH, Abu-Yousef MM. Error in radiology: Classification and lessons in 182 cases presented at a problem case conference. Radiology. 1992;183:145-50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jerome SD, Farrell MB, Godiwala T, et al. Facility perception of nuclear cardiology accreditation: Results of an Intersocietal Accreditation Commission (IAC) survey. J Nucl Cardiol. 2015;22:496-503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    ACC’s 2012 Practice census shows continued changes in practice landscape. American College of Cardiology website. http://www.acc.org/latest-in-cardiology/articles/2012/07/24/11/55/acc-practice-census-2012. Accessed 7 April 2017.

Copyright information

© American Society of Nuclear Cardiology 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. Timothy Maddux
    • 1
  • Mary Beth Farrell
    • 2
  • Joseph A. Ewing
    • 1
  • Peter L. Tilkemeier
    • 1
  1. 1.Greenville Health SystemGreenvilleUSA
  2. 2.Intersocietal Accreditation CommissionEllicott CityUSA

Personalised recommendations