How Do Noninvasive Imaging Facilities Perceive the Accreditation Process? Results of an Intersocietal Accreditation Commission Survey

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

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The Intersocietal Accreditation Commission (IAC) accredits vascular, echocardiography, nuclear medicine, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging laboratories. How facilities involved in the accreditation process view accreditation is unknown. The objective of this study was to examine the perception of laboratory accreditation from those who had undergone the process. An electronic survey request was sent to all facilities that had received IAC accreditation at least once. Demographic information, as well as opinions on the perceived value of accreditation as it relates to 15 quality metrics was acquired. Responses were obtained from 2782 facilities. Of the 15 quality metrics examined, the process was perceived as leading to improvements by a majority of respondents for 10 (67%) metrics including: report standardization, adherence to guidelines, test standardization, report completeness, identification of deficiencies, improved staff knowledge, report timeliness, distinguished facility, correction of deficiencies, and image quality. Overall, the perceived improvement was greater for hospital-based facilities (global 66% vs 59%; P < 0.001). Survey data demonstrate that the accreditation process has a positive perceived impact on the majority of examined metrics. These findings suggest that those undergoing the process find value in accreditation.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)401-406
Number of pages6
JournalClinical Cardiology
Volume38
Issue number7
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 1 2015

Fingerprint

Accreditation
Guideline Adherence
Surveys and Questionnaires
Nuclear Medicine
Blood Vessels
Echocardiography
Tomography
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Demography

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Manning, Warren J. ; Farrell, Mary B. ; Bezold, Louis I. ; Choi, John Y. ; Cockroft, Kevin M. ; Gornik, Heather L. ; Jerome, Scott D. ; Katanick, Sandra L. ; Heller, Gary V. / How Do Noninvasive Imaging Facilities Perceive the Accreditation Process? Results of an Intersocietal Accreditation Commission Survey. In: Clinical Cardiology. 2015 ; Vol. 38, No. 7. pp. 401-406.
@article{37bdf513b3974c7197f06e7bf4ae5a1b,
title = "How Do Noninvasive Imaging Facilities Perceive the Accreditation Process? Results of an Intersocietal Accreditation Commission Survey",
abstract = "The Intersocietal Accreditation Commission (IAC) accredits vascular, echocardiography, nuclear medicine, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging laboratories. How facilities involved in the accreditation process view accreditation is unknown. The objective of this study was to examine the perception of laboratory accreditation from those who had undergone the process. An electronic survey request was sent to all facilities that had received IAC accreditation at least once. Demographic information, as well as opinions on the perceived value of accreditation as it relates to 15 quality metrics was acquired. Responses were obtained from 2782 facilities. Of the 15 quality metrics examined, the process was perceived as leading to improvements by a majority of respondents for 10 (67{\%}) metrics including: report standardization, adherence to guidelines, test standardization, report completeness, identification of deficiencies, improved staff knowledge, report timeliness, distinguished facility, correction of deficiencies, and image quality. Overall, the perceived improvement was greater for hospital-based facilities (global 66{\%} vs 59{\%}; P < 0.001). Survey data demonstrate that the accreditation process has a positive perceived impact on the majority of examined metrics. These findings suggest that those undergoing the process find value in accreditation.",
author = "Manning, {Warren J.} and Farrell, {Mary B.} and Bezold, {Louis I.} and Choi, {John Y.} and Cockroft, {Kevin M.} and Gornik, {Heather L.} and Jerome, {Scott D.} and Katanick, {Sandra L.} and Heller, {Gary V.}",
year = "2015",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1002/clc.22408",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "38",
pages = "401--406",
journal = "Clinical Cardiology",
issn = "0160-9289",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Inc.",
number = "7",

}

Manning, WJ, Farrell, MB, Bezold, LI, Choi, JY, Cockroft, KM, Gornik, HL, Jerome, SD, Katanick, SL & Heller, GV 2015, 'How Do Noninvasive Imaging Facilities Perceive the Accreditation Process? Results of an Intersocietal Accreditation Commission Survey', Clinical Cardiology, vol. 38, no. 7, pp. 401-406. https://doi.org/10.1002/clc.22408

How Do Noninvasive Imaging Facilities Perceive the Accreditation Process? Results of an Intersocietal Accreditation Commission Survey. / Manning, Warren J.; Farrell, Mary B.; Bezold, Louis I.; Choi, John Y.; Cockroft, Kevin M.; Gornik, Heather L.; Jerome, Scott D.; Katanick, Sandra L.; Heller, Gary V.

In: Clinical Cardiology, Vol. 38, No. 7, 01.07.2015, p. 401-406.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

TY - JOUR

T1 - How Do Noninvasive Imaging Facilities Perceive the Accreditation Process? Results of an Intersocietal Accreditation Commission Survey

AU - Manning, Warren J.

AU - Farrell, Mary B.

AU - Bezold, Louis I.

AU - Choi, John Y.

AU - Cockroft, Kevin M.

AU - Gornik, Heather L.

AU - Jerome, Scott D.

AU - Katanick, Sandra L.

AU - Heller, Gary V.

PY - 2015/7/1

Y1 - 2015/7/1

N2 - The Intersocietal Accreditation Commission (IAC) accredits vascular, echocardiography, nuclear medicine, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging laboratories. How facilities involved in the accreditation process view accreditation is unknown. The objective of this study was to examine the perception of laboratory accreditation from those who had undergone the process. An electronic survey request was sent to all facilities that had received IAC accreditation at least once. Demographic information, as well as opinions on the perceived value of accreditation as it relates to 15 quality metrics was acquired. Responses were obtained from 2782 facilities. Of the 15 quality metrics examined, the process was perceived as leading to improvements by a majority of respondents for 10 (67%) metrics including: report standardization, adherence to guidelines, test standardization, report completeness, identification of deficiencies, improved staff knowledge, report timeliness, distinguished facility, correction of deficiencies, and image quality. Overall, the perceived improvement was greater for hospital-based facilities (global 66% vs 59%; P < 0.001). Survey data demonstrate that the accreditation process has a positive perceived impact on the majority of examined metrics. These findings suggest that those undergoing the process find value in accreditation.

AB - The Intersocietal Accreditation Commission (IAC) accredits vascular, echocardiography, nuclear medicine, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging laboratories. How facilities involved in the accreditation process view accreditation is unknown. The objective of this study was to examine the perception of laboratory accreditation from those who had undergone the process. An electronic survey request was sent to all facilities that had received IAC accreditation at least once. Demographic information, as well as opinions on the perceived value of accreditation as it relates to 15 quality metrics was acquired. Responses were obtained from 2782 facilities. Of the 15 quality metrics examined, the process was perceived as leading to improvements by a majority of respondents for 10 (67%) metrics including: report standardization, adherence to guidelines, test standardization, report completeness, identification of deficiencies, improved staff knowledge, report timeliness, distinguished facility, correction of deficiencies, and image quality. Overall, the perceived improvement was greater for hospital-based facilities (global 66% vs 59%; P < 0.001). Survey data demonstrate that the accreditation process has a positive perceived impact on the majority of examined metrics. These findings suggest that those undergoing the process find value in accreditation.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84938089647&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84938089647&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/clc.22408

DO - 10.1002/clc.22408

M3 - Review article

C2 - 26072711

AN - SCOPUS:84938089647

VL - 38

SP - 401

EP - 406

JO - Clinical Cardiology

JF - Clinical Cardiology

SN - 0160-9289

IS - 7

ER -