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

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

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)496-503
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Nuclear Cardiology
Volume22
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 1 2015

Fingerprint

Accreditation
Cardiology
Positron-Emission Tomography
Surveys and Questionnaires
Physician Executives
Guideline Adherence
Nuclear Medicine
Medicare

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Jerome, S. D., Farrell, M. B., Godiwala, T., Heller, G. V., Bezold, L. I., Choi, J. Y., ... Manning, W. J. (2015). Facility perception of nuclear cardiology accreditation: Results of an Intersocietal Accreditation Commission (IAC) survey. Journal of Nuclear Cardiology, 22(3), 496-503. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12350-014-0011-5
Jerome, Scott D. ; Farrell, Mary B. ; Godiwala, Tapan ; Heller, Gary V. ; Bezold, Louis I. ; Choi, John Y. ; Cockroft, Kevin M. ; Gornik, Heather L. ; Katanick, Sandra L. ; Manning, Warren J. / Facility perception of nuclear cardiology accreditation : Results of an Intersocietal Accreditation Commission (IAC) survey. In: Journal of Nuclear Cardiology. 2015 ; Vol. 22, No. 3. pp. 496-503.
@article{8a3ee70cb080410f9c69ead02b8b6494,
title = "Facility perception of nuclear cardiology accreditation: Results of an Intersocietal Accreditation Commission (IAC) survey",
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.",
author = "Jerome, {Scott D.} and Farrell, {Mary B.} and Tapan Godiwala and Heller, {Gary V.} and Bezold, {Louis I.} and Choi, {John Y.} and Cockroft, {Kevin M.} and Gornik, {Heather L.} and Katanick, {Sandra L.} and Manning, {Warren J.}",
year = "2015",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s12350-014-0011-5",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "22",
pages = "496--503",
journal = "Journal of Nuclear Cardiology",
issn = "1071-3581",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "3",

}

Jerome, SD, Farrell, MB, Godiwala, T, Heller, GV, Bezold, LI, Choi, JY, Cockroft, KM, Gornik, HL, Katanick, SL & Manning, WJ 2015, 'Facility perception of nuclear cardiology accreditation: Results of an Intersocietal Accreditation Commission (IAC) survey', Journal of Nuclear Cardiology, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 496-503. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12350-014-0011-5

Facility perception of nuclear cardiology accreditation : Results of an Intersocietal Accreditation Commission (IAC) survey. / Jerome, Scott D.; Farrell, Mary B.; Godiwala, Tapan; Heller, Gary V.; Bezold, Louis I.; Choi, John Y.; Cockroft, Kevin M.; Gornik, Heather L.; Katanick, Sandra L.; Manning, Warren J.

In: Journal of Nuclear Cardiology, Vol. 22, No. 3, 01.06.2015, p. 496-503.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Facility perception of nuclear cardiology accreditation

T2 - Results of an Intersocietal Accreditation Commission (IAC) survey

AU - Jerome, Scott D.

AU - Farrell, Mary B.

AU - Godiwala, Tapan

AU - Heller, Gary V.

AU - Bezold, Louis I.

AU - Choi, John Y.

AU - Cockroft, Kevin M.

AU - Gornik, Heather L.

AU - Katanick, Sandra L.

AU - Manning, Warren J.

PY - 2015/6/1

Y1 - 2015/6/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84929083920&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84929083920&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s12350-014-0011-5

DO - 10.1007/s12350-014-0011-5

M3 - Article

C2 - 25352528

AN - SCOPUS:84929083920

VL - 22

SP - 496

EP - 503

JO - Journal of Nuclear Cardiology

JF - Journal of Nuclear Cardiology

SN - 1071-3581

IS - 3

ER -