Skip to main content

Facility perception of nuclear cardiology accreditation: Results of an Intersocietal Accreditation Commission (IAC) survey



The Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act requires accreditation for all non-hospital suppliers of nuclear cardiology, nuclear medicine, and positron emission tomography (PET) studies as a condition of reimbursement. The perceptions of these facilities regarding the value and impact of the accreditation process are unknown. We conducted an electronic survey to assess the value of nuclear cardiology accreditation.


A request to participate in an electronic survey was sent to the medical and technical directors (n = 5,721) of all facilities who had received Intersocietal Accreditation Commission (IAC) Nuclear/PET accreditation. Demographic information, as well as, opinions on the value of accreditation as it relates to 16 quality metrics was obtained.


There were 664 (11.6%) respondents familiar with the accreditation process of which 26% were hospital-based and 74% were nonhospital-based. Of the quality metrics examined, the process was perceived as leading to improvements by a majority of all respondents for 10 (59%) metrics including report standardization, report completeness, guideline adherence, deficiency identification, report timeliness, staff knowledge, facility distinction, deficiency correction, acquisition standardization, and image quality. Overall, the global perceived improvement was greater for hospital-based facilities (63% vs 57%; P < .001). Ninety-five percent of respondents felt that accreditation was important. Hospital-based facilities were more likely to feel that accreditation demonstrates a commitment to quality (43% vs 33%, P = .029), while nonhospital-based facilities were more likely to feel accreditation is important for reimbursement (50% vs 29%, P≤ .001).


Although the accreditation process is demanding, the results of the IAC survey indicate that the accreditation process has a positive perceived impact for the majority of examined quality metrics, suggesting the facilities find the process to be valuable.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4


  1. About the IAC. Accessed 5 May 2014

  2. American Society of Nuclear Cardiology Guidelines and Quality Standards. Accessed 23 Apr 2014

  3. Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Practice Guidelines. Accessed 23 Apr 2014

  4. Intersocietal Accreditation Commission Standards and Guidelines for Nuclear/PET Accreditation. (2013). Ellicott City, MD. Accessed 5 May 2014

  5. Intersocietal Accreditation Commission Policies and Procedures (2012). Ellicott City, MD Accessed 5 May 2014

  6. Medicare Program; Approval of Independent Accrediting Organizations to. Participate in the advanced diagnostic imaging supplier accreditation program. Fed Regist 2010;75:4088-9.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Medicare Program; Approval of accrediting organization for suppliers of advanced diagnostic imaging supplier accreditation program (CMS-6023-N3). Fed Regist 2013:59701-02.

  8. Accredited Facility Search-American College of Radiology (2014). Accessed 30 Aug 2014

  9. Quality Check: Find an Organization-The Joint Commission (2014). Accessed 30 Aug 2014

  10. Accreditation Directory-Radsite (2014). Accessed 30 Aug 2014

  11. Manning W, Farrell M, Bezold L, Choi J, Cockroft K, Gornik H et al. (2014) How do non-invasive imaging facilities perceive the accreditation process? Results of an Intersocietal Accreditation Commission (IAC) Survey [abstract]. J Am Coll Cardiol 63(12_S)

  12. Farrell MB. IAC Survey—the value of accreditation. Accessed 2 May 2014

  13. U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census: Regions and Divisions. Accessed 25 Sept 2013

  14. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Farrell MB, Jerome S, Shaw LJ, Tilkemeier PL (in press) Recommended vs. observed radiation doses for myocardial perfusion imaging: Results from the Intersocietal Accreditation Commission database [abstract]

  16. Sinclair M, O’Toole J, Malawaraarachchi M, Leder K. Comparison of response rates and cost-effectiveness for a community-based survey: Postal, internet and telephone modes with generic or personalized recruitment approaches. BMC Med Res Method 2012;12:132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mary B. Farrell MS.

Additional information

See related editorial, doi:10.1007/s12350-014-0021-3

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jerome, S.D., Farrell, M.B., Godiwala, T. et al. Facility perception of nuclear cardiology accreditation: Results of an Intersocietal Accreditation Commission (IAC) survey. J. Nucl. Cardiol. 22, 496–503 (2015).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:


  • Accreditation
  • quality
  • reimbursement