RESUMO
As the health care environment continues to change and morph into a system focusing on increased quality and evidence-based outcomes, nuclear medicine technologists must be reminded that they play a critical role in achieving high-quality, interpretable images used to drive patient care, treatment, and best possible outcomes. A survey performed by the Quality Committee of the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Technologist Section demonstrated that a clear knowledge gap exists among technologists regarding their understanding of quality, how it is measured, and how it should be achieved by all practicing technologists regardless of role and education level. Understanding of these areas within health care, in conjunction with the growing emphasis on evidence-based outcomes, quality measures, and patient satisfaction, will ultimately elevate the role of nuclear medicine technologists today and into the future. The nuclear medicine role now requires technologists to demonstrate patient assessment skills, practice safety procedures with regard to staff and patients, provide patient education and instruction, and provide physicians with information to assist with the interpretation and outcome of the study. In addition, the technologist must be able to evaluate images by performing technical analysis, knowing the demonstrated anatomy and pathophysiology, and assessing overall quality. Technologists must also be able to triage and understand the disease processes being evaluated and how nuclear medicine diagnostic studies may drive care and treatment. Therefore, it is imperative that nuclear medicine technologists understand their role in the achievement of a high-quality, interpretable study by applying quality principles and understanding and using imaging techniques beyond just basic protocols for every type of disease or system being imaged. This article focuses on quality considerations related to ventilation-perfusion imaging. It provides insight on appropriate imaging techniques and protocols, true imaging variants and tracer distributions versus artifacts that may result in a lower-quality or misinterpreted study, and the use of SPECT and SPECT/CT as an alternative providing a high-quality, interpretable study with better diagnostic accuracy and fewer nondiagnostic procedures than historical planar imaging.