Reporting nuclear cardiology studies: Is the cup half-full or half-empty?

Excerpt

In this issue of the journal, Maddux et al. present their findings on improved compliance with reporting guidelines in U.S. nuclear cardiology laboratories seeking accreditation from the Intersocietal Accreditation Commission (IAC).1 The nuclear cardiology report is studded with a wealth of clinical, exercise, safety, physiologic, hemodynamic, electrocardiographic, and perfusion data that not only yield diagnostic and prognostic implications, but also guide decision-making. For the past 15 years, the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology (ASNC) has spearheaded the movement to elevate the nuclear cardiology report to a standardized, all-encompassing document that contains essential elements needed for timely clinical decision-making.2-6 The 2009 ASNC standardized reporting guidelines serve as a framework for accreditation agencies to establish reporting standards for nuclear laboratories seeking accreditation.6,7 Over the past decade, physician-leaders, inter-disciplinary societies as well as healthcare organizations have spent considerable energy and resources to educate care teams and laboratories on best practices in nuclear cardiology, including “habit-building” exercises in issuing comprehensive, intelligible clinical reports. …