Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Nuclear Cardiology 3/2015

01-06-2015 | Original Article

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

Authors: Scott D. Jerome, DO, Mary B. Farrell, MS, Tapan Godiwala, MD, Gary V. Heller, MD, Louis I. Bezold, MD, John Y. Choi, MD, Kevin M. Cockroft, MD, MSc, Heather L. Gornik, MD, Sandra L. Katanick, CAE, Warren J. Manning, MD

Published in: Journal of Nuclear Cardiology | Issue 3/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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).

Conclusion

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.
Literature
6.
go back to reference Medicare Program; Approval of Independent Accrediting Organizations to. Participate in the advanced diagnostic imaging supplier accreditation program. Fed Regist 2010;75:4088-9. Medicare Program; Approval of Independent Accrediting Organizations to. Participate in the advanced diagnostic imaging supplier accreditation program. Fed Regist 2010;75:4088-9.
7.
go back to reference Medicare Program; Approval of accrediting organization for suppliers of advanced diagnostic imaging supplier accreditation program (CMS-6023-N3). Fed Regist 2013:59701-02. Medicare Program; Approval of accrediting organization for suppliers of advanced diagnostic imaging supplier accreditation program (CMS-6023-N3). Fed Regist 2013:59701-02.
11.
go back to reference 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) 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)
14.
go back to reference 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.CrossRefPubMed 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.CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference 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] 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.
go back to reference 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.CrossRef 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.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Facility perception of nuclear cardiology accreditation: Results of an Intersocietal Accreditation Commission (IAC) survey
Authors
Scott D. Jerome, DO
Mary B. Farrell, MS
Tapan Godiwala, MD
Gary V. Heller, MD
Louis I. Bezold, MD
John Y. Choi, MD
Kevin M. Cockroft, MD, MSc
Heather L. Gornik, MD
Sandra L. Katanick, CAE
Warren J. Manning, MD
Publication date
01-06-2015
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Journal of Nuclear Cardiology / Issue 3/2015
Print ISSN: 1071-3581
Electronic ISSN: 1532-6551
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12350-014-0011-5

Other articles of this Issue 3/2015

Journal of Nuclear Cardiology 3/2015 Go to the issue