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).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  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.
authors.affiliation: University of Maryland School of Medicine, 295 Stoner Ave, #103, Baltimore, MD, 21157, USA, sjerome@medicine.umaryland.edu.
authors.forename: Scott D
authors.initials: SD
authors.lastname: Jerome
authors.forename: Mary B
authors.initials: MB
authors.lastname: Farrell
authors.forename: Tapan
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Godiwala
authors.forename: Gary V
authors.initials: GV
authors.lastname: Heller
authors.forename: Louis I
authors.initials: LI
authors.lastname: Bezold
authors.forename: John Y
authors.initials: JY
authors.lastname: Choi
authors.forename: Kevin M
authors.initials: KM
authors.lastname: Cockroft
authors.forename: Heather L
authors.initials: HL
authors.lastname: Gornik
authors.forename: Sandra L
authors.initials: SL
authors.lastname: Katanick
authors.forename: Warren J
authors.initials: WJ
authors.lastname: Manning
mesh_terms: D000068:Accreditation; D000465:Algorithms; D001291:Attitude of Health Personnel; D002309:Cardiology / Q000379:methods / Q000458:organization & administration*; D019983:Guideline Adherence; D006761:Hospitals; D006278:Medicare; D009683:Nuclear Medicine / Q000379:methods / Q000458:organization & administration*; D049268:Positron-Emission Tomography; D058996:Quality Improvement; D011787:Quality of Health Care; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires; D014481:United States