Skip to main content

Improved compliance with reporting standards: A retrospective analysis of Intersocietal Accreditation Commission Nuclear Cardiology Laboratories



In 2011, Tilkemeier et al reported significant nuclear cardiology laboratory noncompliance with reporting standards. The aim of this study was to identify and examine noncompliant reporting elements with the Intersocietal Accreditation Commission Nuclear/PET (IAC) Reporting Standards and to compare compliance between 2008 and 2014.


This was a retrospective study of compliance with 18 reporting elements utilizing accreditation findings from all laboratories applying for accreditation in 2008 and 2014.


1816 labs applying for initial or subsequent accreditation were analyzed for compliance. The mean reporting noncompliance per lab decreased from 2008 to 2014 (2.48 ± 2.67 to 1.24 ± 1.79, P < .001). Noncompliance decreased across lab types, labs with Certification Board of Nuclear Cardiology physicians on staff, and by geographic region (P < .001). Overall severity of reporting issues decreased. Facilities with compliant reports increased from 35.0% in 2008 to 57.1% in 2014 (P < .001).


Continuing medical education, accreditation, and other instructional activities aimed at improving nuclear cardiology reporting appear to have made a positive impact over time with the number and severity of noncompliance decreased. More labs are now compliant with the IAC Standards and, thus, reporting guidelines. However, the need for continued educational efforts remains.

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

Figure 1
Figure 2



American Society of Nuclear Cardiology


Certification Board of Nuclear Cardiology


Intersocietal Accreditation Commission


  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Graham MM. The PET/CT report: The most important part of the study. J Nucl Med 2010;51:5-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Reiner B, Siegel E. Radiology reporting: Returning to our image-centric roots. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006;187:1151-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Reiner BI, Knight N, Siegel EL. Radiology reporting, past, present, and future: The radiologist’s perspective. J Am Coll Radiol 2007;4:313-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Wackers FJ. Intersocietal Commission for the Accreditation of Nuclear Medicine Laboratories (ICANL) position statement on standardization and optimization of nuclear cardiology reports. J Nucl Cardiol 2000;7:397-400.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Weiner SN. Radiology by nonradiologists: Is report documentation adequate? Am J Manag Care 2005;11:781-5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Anagnostopoulos C, Harbinson M, Kelion A, et al. Procedure guidelines for radionuclide myocardial perfusion imaging. Nucl Med Commun 2003;24:1105-19.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Hesse B, Lindhardt TB, Acampa W, et al. EANM/ESC guidelines for radionuclide imaging of cardiac function. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2008;35:851-85.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Tilkemeier PL, Cooke CD, Grossman GB, McCallister BD, Ward RP. Standardized reporting of radionuclide myocardial perfusion and function. J Nucl Cardiol 2009;16:650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. IAC standards and guidelines for nuclear/PET. Ellicott City, MD: Intersocietal Accreditation Commission; 2012.

  11. Tilkemeier PL, Serber ER, Farrell MB. The nuclear cardiology report: Problems, predictors, and improvement. A report from the ICANL database. J Nucl Card 2011;18:858-68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. U.S. Census Bureau, Economic Census: Regions and Divisions. Accessed August 14, 2014.

  13. Coleman RE, Hillner BE, Shields AF, et al. PET and PET/CT reports: Observations from the National Oncologic PET Registry. J Nucl Med 2010;51:158-63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Holly TA, Abbott BG, Al-Mallah M, et al. ASNC imaging guidelines for nuclear cardiology procedures—single photon-emission computed tomography. J Nucl Cardiol 2010;17:941-73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Cerqueira MD, Arrighi JA, Geiser EA. Physician certification in cardiovascular imaging: Rationale, process, and benefits. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2008;1:801-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references


Author Farrell is an employee of the Intersocietal Accreditation Commission. Authors Tilkemeier, Maddux, and Ewing have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mary Beth Farrell MS.

Additional information


No financial support was received for this project.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

(PPTX 421 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Maddux, P.T., Farrell, M.B., Ewing, J.A. et al. Improved compliance with reporting standards: A retrospective analysis of Intersocietal Accreditation Commission Nuclear Cardiology Laboratories. J. Nucl. Cardiol. 25, 986–994 (2018).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:


  • Nuclear cardiology
  • reporting
  • compliance
  • accreditation
  • continuing education