Variation in Carotid Artery Stenosis Measurements Among Facilities Seeking Carotid Stenting Facility Accreditation.

BACKGROUND: Based on the inclusion criteria of clinical trials, the degree of cervical carotid artery stenosis is often used as an indication for stent placement in the setting of extracranial carotid atherosclerotic disease. However, the rigor and consistency with which stenosis is measured outside of clinical trials are unclear. In an agreement study using a cross-sectional sample, we compared the percent stenosis as measured by real-world physician operators to that measured by independent expert reviewers. METHODS: As part of the carotid stenting facility accreditation review, images were obtained from 68 cases of patients who underwent carotid stent placement. Data collected included demographics, stroke severity measures, and the documented degree of stenosis, termed operator-reported stenosis (ORS), by 34 operators from 14 clinical sites. The ORS was compared with reviewer-measured stenosis (RMS) as assessed by 5 clinicians experienced in treating carotid artery disease. RESULTS: The median ORS was 90.0% (interquartile range, 80.0%-90.0%) versus a median RMS of 61.1% (interquartile range, 49.8%-73.6%), with a median difference of 21.8% (interquartile range, 13.7%-34.4%), P<0.001. The median difference in ORS and RMS for asymptomatic versus symptomatic patients was not statistically different (24.6% versus 19.6%; P=0.406). The median difference between ORS and RMS for facilities granted initial accreditation was smaller compared with facilities whose accreditation was delayed (17.9% versus 25.5%, P=0.035). The intraclass correlation between ORS and RMS was 0.16, indicating poor agreement. If RMS measurements were used, 72% of symptomatic patients and 10% of asymptomatic patients in the population examined would meet the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services criteria for stent placement. CONCLUSIONS: Real-world operators tend to overestimate carotid artery stenosis compared with external expert reviewers. Measurements from facilities granted initial accreditation were closer to expert measurements than those from facilities whose accreditation was delayed. Since decisions regarding carotid revascularization are often based on percent stenosis, such measuring discrepancies likely lead to increased procedural utilization.

The association of imaging equipment age with other quality metrics and successful laboratory accreditation by the Intersocietal Accreditation Commission.

BACKGROUND: Intersocietal Accreditation Commission (IAC) accreditation is granted or delayed depending on the fulfillment of several quality metrics. Investing in up-to-date equipment might reflect a commitment to quality. METHODS: Data from echocardiography (n = 3079) and nuclear cardiology (n = 1835) accreditation applications submitted between 2012 and 2014 were evaluated to determine the mean age of laboratory equipment. Laboratory quality was assessed by the number of missing quality metrics, and a composite quality score was calculated as the sum of missing quality metrics. A lower score thus represented better laboratory quality. The relationship between equipment age and quality was explored as an interaction term between equipment age and the composite quality score and was incorporated into regression models for prediction of accreditation status. RESULTS: During the study period, 49% of echocardiography and 42% of nuclear laboratories were granted accreditation without delay. For both echocardiography and nuclear laboratories, there was a statistically significant trend toward an increasing number of missing quality metrics with increasing quartiles of equipment age. The interaction between equipment age and the composite quality score was a significant predictor of delay of accreditation for both echocardiography and nuclear cardiology laboratories, with a stronger association for 1st-time applicants. Among sites applying for accreditation in both modalities simultaneously, accreditation in one modality predicted the accreditation decision for the other. CONCLUSIONS: Laboratory quality is an important determinant of IAC accreditation, and equipment age is an effect modifier of this relationship. Contemporary equipment likely reflects a commitment to quality, for both echocardiography and nuclear laboratories.

Improving compliance with Intersocietal Accreditation Commission (IAC) reporting standards: A serial comparison of 523 labs over seven years.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate reporting compliance of laboratories applying for serial accreditation by the Intersocietal Accreditation Commission (IAC) and compare compliance based on laboratory characteristics. METHODS: All laboratories applying for IAC accreditation for the first time in 2008 and then twice more (2011-2014) were evaluated for compliance with 18 reporting elements. The elements were ranked into three severity groups (high/moderate/low). RESULTS: Reports from 523 laboratories were evaluated. The percentage of laboratories with reporting issues by cycle was 66.2% for cycle 1, 36.7% for cycle 2, and 43.8% for cycle 3 (p < .001). For most of the 18 elements, there was a significant decrease in the percentage of labs with issues. Less moderate and high severity errors were seen over time. Also, the mean non-compliant elements per laboratory decreased from 5.78 ± 2.72 at cycle 1, down to 1.25 ± 1.77 at cycle 3. CONCLUSIONS: In facilities applying for 3 consecutive IAC accreditation cycles, reporting compliance with IAC Standards improved between cycles 1-2 and 1-3. No significant improvement occurred between cycles 2-3. Although the quality of reports improved overall, problems remain in quantifying myocardial perfusion defects, documenting report approval date, and integrating stress and imaging reports.

Improved compliance with reporting standards: A retrospective analysis of Intersocietal Accreditation Commission Nuclear Cardiology Laboratories.

BACKGROUND: In 2011, Tilkemeier et al reported significant nuclear cardiology laboratory noncompliance with reporting standards. The aim of this study was to identify and examine noncompliant reporting elements with the Intersocietal Accreditation Commission Nuclear/PET (IAC) Reporting Standards and to compare compliance between 2008 and 2014. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of compliance with 18 reporting elements utilizing accreditation findings from all laboratories applying for accreditation in 2008 and 2014. RESULTS: 1816 labs applying for initial or subsequent accreditation were analyzed for compliance. The mean reporting noncompliance per lab decreased from 2008 to 2014 (2.48 ± 2.67 to 1.24 ± 1.79, P < .001). Noncompliance decreased across lab types, labs with Certification Board of Nuclear Cardiology physicians on staff, and by geographic region (P < .001). Overall severity of reporting issues decreased. Facilities with compliant reports increased from 35.0% in 2008 to 57.1% in 2014 (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Continuing medical education, accreditation, and other instructional activities aimed at improving nuclear cardiology reporting appear to have made a positive impact over time with the number and severity of noncompliance decreased. More labs are now compliant with the IAC Standards and, thus, reporting guidelines. However, the need for continued educational efforts remains.

Accreditation Status and Geographic Location of Outpatient Echocardiographic Testing Facilities Among Medicare Beneficiaries: The VALUE-ECHO Study.

OBJECTIVES: Accreditation of echocardiographic testing facilities by the Intersocietal Accreditation Commission (IAC) is supported by the American College of Cardiology and American Society of Echocardiography. However, limited information exists on the accreditation status and geographic distribution of echocardiographic facilities in the United States. Our study aimed to identify (1) the proportion of outpatient echocardiography facilities used by Medicare beneficiaries that are IAC accredited, (2) their geographic distribution, and (3) variations in procedure type and volume by accreditation status. METHODS: As part of the VALUE-ECHO (Value of Accreditation, Location, and Utilization Evaluation-Echocardiography) study, we examined the proportion of IAC-accredited echocardiographic facilities performing outpatient echocardiography in the 2013 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services outpatient limited data set (100% sample) and their geographic distribution using geocoding in ArcGIS (ESRI, Redlands, CA). RESULTS: Among 4573 outpatient facilities billing Medicare for echocardiographic testing in 2013, 99.6% (n = 4554) were IAC accredited (99.7% in the 50 US states and 86.2% in Puerto Rico). The proportion IAC-accredited echocardiographic facilities varied by region, with 98.7%, 99.9%, 99.9%, 99.5%, and 86.2% of facilities accredited in the Northeast, South, Midwest, West, and Puerto Rico, respectively (P < .01, Fisher exact test). Of all echocardiographic outpatient procedures conducted (n = 1,890,156), 99.8% (n = 1,885,382) were performed in IAC-accredited echocardiographic facilities. Most procedures (90.9%) were transthoracic echocardiograms, of which 99.7% were conducted in IAC-accredited echocardiographic facilities. CONCLUSIONS: Almost all outpatient echocardiographic facilities billed by Medicare are IAC accredited. This accreditation rate is substantially higher than previously reported for US outpatient vascular testing facilities (13% IAC accredited). The uniformity of imaging and interpretation protocols from a single accrediting body is important to facilitate optimal cardiovascular care.

Intersocietal Accreditation Commission Accreditation Status of Outpatient Cerebrovascular Testing Facilities Among Medicare Beneficiaries: The VALUE Study.

OBJECTIVES: Accreditation of cerebrovascular ultrasound laboratories by the Intersocietal Accreditation Commission (IAC) and equivalent organizations is supported by the Joint Commission certification of stroke centers. Limited information exists on the accreditation status and geographic distribution of cerebrovascular testing facilities in the United States. Our study objectives were to identify the proportion of IAC-accredited outpatient cerebrovascular testing facilities used by Medicare beneficiaries, describe their geographic distribution, and identify variations in cerebrovascular testing procedure types and volumes by accreditation status. METHODS: As part of the VALUE (Vascular Accreditation, Location, and Utilization Evaluation) Study, we examined the proportion of IAC-accredited facilities that conducted cerebrovascular testing in a 5% Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services random Outpatient Limited Data Set in 2011 and investigated their geographic distribution using geocoding. RESULTS: Among 7327 outpatient facilities billing Medicare for cerebrovascular testing, only 22% (1640) were IAC accredited. The proportion of IAC-accredited cerebrovascular testing facilities varied by region (χ(2)[3] = 177.1; P < .0001), with 29%, 15%, 13%, and 10% located in the Northeast, South, Midwest, and West, respectively. However, of the total number of cerebrovascular outpatient procedures conducted in 2011 (38,555), 40% (15,410) were conducted in IAC-accredited facilities. Most cerebrovascular testing procedures were carotid duplex, with 40% of them conducted in IAC-accredited facilities. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of facilities conducting outpatient cerebrovascular testing accredited by the IAC is low and varies by region. The growing number of certified stroke centers should be accompanied by more accredited outpatient vascular testing facilities, which could potentially improve the quality of stroke care.

Accreditation status and geographic location of outpatient vascular testing facilities among Medicare beneficiaries: the VALUE (Vascular Accreditation, Location & Utilization Evaluation) study.

OBJECTIVE: There is limited information on the accreditation status and geographic distribution of vascular testing facilities in the US. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) provide reimbursement to facilities regardless of accreditation status. The aims were to: (1) identify the proportion of Intersocietal Accreditation Commission (IAC) accredited vascular testing facilities in a 5% random national sample of Medicare beneficiaries receiving outpatient vascular testing services; (2) describe the geographic distribution of these facilities. METHODS: The VALUE (Vascular Accreditation, Location & Utilization Evaluation) Study examines the proportion of IAC accredited facilities providing vascular testing procedures nationally, and the geographic distribution and utilization of these facilities. The data set containing all facilities that billed Medicare for outpatient vascular testing services in 2011 (5% CMS Outpatient Limited Data Set (LDS) file) was examined, and locations of outpatient vascular testing facilities were obtained from the 2011 CMS/Medicare Provider of Services (POS) file. RESULTS: Of 13,462 total vascular testing facilities billing Medicare for vascular testing procedures in a 5% random Outpatient LDS for the US in 2011, 13% (n=1730) of facilities were IAC accredited. The percentage of IAC accredited vascular testing facilities in the LDS file varied significantly by US region, p<0.0001: 26%, 12%, 11%, and 7% for the Northeast, South, Midwest, and Western regions, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that the proportion of outpatient vascular testing facilities that are IAC accredited is low and varies by region. Increasing the number of accredited vascular testing facilities to improve test quality is a hypothesis that should be tested in future research.

Gastric Emptying Solid-Meal Content and Misinformation on Social Media Platforms.

Several nuclear medicine technologist-specific groups exist on social media sites such as Facebook and LinkedIn. Although these sites provide a valuable resource and forum for technologists to interact and pose questions, any recommendations, especially those regarding patient care, should be carefully scrutinized and evaluated on the basis of scientific merit and not opinion. Recently, an assortment of unvalidated ingredients for solid-meal gastric emptying scintigraphy has been suggested on these social media sites. Often, these ingredients do not comply with the peer-reviewed guidelines and can potentially produce unreliable results and misdiagnosis. Thus, before implementing advice from an unvetted source, technologists must distinguish between low- and high-quality information. Currency, reliability, authority, and purpose-a test of the trustworthiness of an information source-can help technologists evaluate recommendations and avoid the use of unsupported solid-meal gastric emptying scintigraphy ingredients.

Reexamining Compliance with Gastric Emptying Scintigraphy Guidelines: An Updated Analysis of the Intersocietal Accreditation Commission Database.

Many variables can influence the results of gastric emptying scintigraphy (GES). A lack of standardization causes variability, limits comparisons, and decreases the credibility of the study. To increase standardization, in 2009 the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (SNMMI) published a guideline for a standardized, validated GES protocol for adults based on a 2008 consensus document. Laboratories must closely follow the consensus guideline to provide valid and standardized results as an incentive to achieve consistency in patient care. As part of the accreditation process, the Intersocietal Accreditation Commission (IAC) evaluates compliance with such guidelines. The rate of compliance with the SNMMI guideline was assessed in 2016 and showed a substantial degree of noncompliance. The aim of this study was to reassess compliance with the standardized protocol across the same cohort of laboratories, looking for changes and trends. Methods: The IAC nuclear/PET database was used to extract GES protocols from all laboratories applying for accreditation from 2018 to 2021, 5 y after the initial assessment. The number of labs was 118 (vs. 127 in the initial assessment). Each protocol was again evaluated for compliance with the methods described in the SNMMI guideline. The same 14 variables were assessed in a binary fashion: patient preparation (4 variables-types of medications withheld, withholding of these medication for 48 h, blood glucose ≤ 200 mg/dL, blood glucose recorded), meal (5 variables-use of consensus meal, nothing by mouth for 4 h or more, meal consumed within 10 min, documentation of percentage of meal consumed, meal labeled with 18.5-37 MBq [0.5-1.0 mCi]), acquisition (2 variables-anterior and posterior projections obtained, imaging each hour out to 4 h), and processing (3 variables-use of the geometric mean, decay correction of data, and measurement of percentage retention). Results: Protocols from the 118 labs demonstrated that compliance is improving in some key areas but remains suboptimal in others. Overall, labs were compliant with an average of 8 of the 14 variables, with a low of 1-variable compliance at 1 site, and only 4 sites compliant with all 14 variables. Nineteen sites met an 80% threshold for compliance (11+ variables). The variable with the highest compliance was the patient's taking nothing by mouth for 4 h or more before the exam (97%). The variable with the lowest compliance was the recording of blood glucose values (3%). Notable areas of improvement include the use of the consensus meal, now 62% versus previously only 30% of labs. Greater compliance was also noted with measurement of retention percentages (instead of emptying percentages or half-times), with compliance by 65% of sites versus only 35% 5 y prior. Conclusion: Almost 13 y after the publication of the SNMMI GES guidelines, there is improving but still suboptimal protocol adherence among laboratories applying for IAC accreditation. Persistent variation in the performance of GES protocols may significantly affect patient management, as results may be unreliable. Using the standardized GES protocol permits interpretation of results in a consistent manner that allows interlaboratory comparisons and fosters acceptance of the test validity by referring clinicians.

A Quick Guide to Writing a Teaching Case Study.

Case studies published in the Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology are brief chronologic or logical descriptions of a clinical experience that aim to share a technical outcome associated with an instrumentation or patient care scenario or demonstrate a unique finding associated with a nuclear medicine procedure. Although brief by necessity, case studies provide enough relevant detail to educate the reader about a clinical condition coupled with a diagnostic or therapeutic procedure. Case studies do not have to be about bizarre clinical conditions. Case studies can be about quality issues that directly impact the imaging or therapeutic procedure, protocol modifications when a clinical scenario requires out-of-the-box decisions, new techniques developed to address unique or difficult situations, or something as simple as an artifact that resulted in an unusual image finding. The sections of a case study, including the introduction, case report, discussion, and conclusion, are explained. The goal of this article is to teach new authors how to write a teaching case study.

Crafting a Compelling Abstract That Gets Accepted.

Presenting an abstract at the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging annual meeting is an opportunity to gain peer recognition and share knowledge. This article explains how to craft a winning conference abstract. The goal of an abstract is to summarize the main points of a research project or topic. There are 2 types of abstracts: scientific and educational. Scientific abstracts generally involve data collection or a survey and follow a specific formula. The introduction provides a brief background and states the research question. The methods describe the study design and variables. The results present key findings, and the conclusion summarizes the findings' implications and significance. Educational abstracts are unstructured and usually describe a single topic, such as a case study, literature review, or new technique. Crafting an abstract requires clear communication, attention to detail, and an emphasis on practical applications. Effectively structuring a compelling abstract increases your abstract's acceptance chances.

Cardiac Amyloidosis Imaging, Part 1: Amyloidosis Etiology and Image Acquisition.

Cardiac amyloidosis is a systemic form of amyloidosis in which protein-based infiltrates are deposited in myocardial extracellular space. The accumulation of amyloid fibrils causes the myocardium to thicken and stiffen, leading to diastolic dysfunction and, eventually, heart failure. Until recently, cardiac amyloidosis was considered rare. However, the recent adoption of noninvasive diagnostic testing, including 99mTc-pyrophosphate imaging, has revealed a previously undiagnosed sizable disease prevalence. Light-chain amyloidosis (AL) and transthyretin amyloidosis (ATTR), the 2 primary types, account for 95% of cardiac amyloidosis diagnoses. AL results from plasma cell dyscrasia and has a very poor prognosis. The usual treatment for cardiac AL is chemotherapy and immunotherapy. Cardiac ATTR is more chronic, usually resulting from age-related instability and misfolding of the transthyretin protein. ATTR is treated by managing heart failure and using new pharmacotherapeutic drugs. 99mTc-pyrophosphate imaging can efficiently and effectively distinguish between ATTR and cardiac AL. Although the exact mechanism of myocardial 99mTc-pyrophosphate uptake is unknown, it is believed to bind to amyloid plaque microcalcifications. 99mTc-pyrophosphate imaging has a 97% sensitivity and nearly 100% sensitivity for identifying cardiac ATTR when the AL form of the disease is ruled out through serum free light-chain and serum and urine protein electrophoresis with immunofixation testing. Although there are no published 99mTc-pyrophosphate cardiac amyloidosis imaging guidelines, the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, and others have published consensus recommendations to standardize test performance and interpretation. This article, part 1 of a 3-part series in this issue of the Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology, describes amyloidosis etiology and cardiac amyloidosis characteristics, including the types, prevalence, signs and symptoms, and disease course. It further explains the scan acquisition protocol. Part 2 of the series focuses on image/data quantification and technical considerations. Finally, part 3 describes scan interpretation, along with the diagnosis and treatment of cardiac amyloidosis.

Cardiac Amyloidosis Imaging, Part 2: Quantification and Technical Considerations.

99mTc-pyrophosphate imaging has been around for a long time. In the 1970s, it was used to image recent myocardial infarction. However, it has recently been recognized for its value in detecting cardiac amyloidosis, leading to widespread use across the United States. Increased use led to considerable procedure variability. As the evidence base to support formal guidelines was being developed, experts from several professional medical societies issued imaging and interpretation recommendations titled "ASNC/AHA/ASE/EANM/HFSA/ISA/SCMR/SNMMI Expert Consensus Recommendations for Multimodality Imaging in Cardiac Amyloidosis: part 1 of 2-Evidence Base and Standardized Methods of Imaging." To reach a consensus on a protocol that would benefit the bulk of laboratories, the experts considered several parameters and radiotracer kinetics. The most critical parameters concerned injection-to-imaging delay and planar imaging versus SPECT. Accordingly, the standardized protocol recommends the injection of 370-740 MBq (10-20 mCi) of 99mTc-pyrophosphate with imaging 3 h later. Planar images of the chest are acquired in the anterior and lateral views accompanied by SPECT images. Both the planar and the SPECT images are used to semiquantitatively grade the degree of myocardial uptake compared with the amount of uptake in the ribs using a 0-3 scale. A grade of 2 or 3 on the SPECT images is considered positive for cardiac amyloidosis. The planar images are used to calculate a heart-to-contralateral-lung ratio. A ratio greater than 1.3 at 3 h helps to confirm the diagnosis of cardiac amyloid if the SPECT images have positive findings. This article is part of a 3-part series in this issue of the Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology Part 1 details the etiology of cardiac amyloidosis and 99mTc-pyrophosphate imaging acquisition parameters. Part 2, this article, describes the procedure evolution over 50 y, image processing, and quantification. It further discusses radiotracer kinetics and 2 important technical considerations: injection-to-imaging delay and planar imaging versus SPECT. Part 3 covers study interpretation along with cardiac amyloidosis diagnosis and treatment.

Cardiac Amyloidosis Imaging, Part 3: Interpretation, Diagnosis, and Treatment.

Cardiac amyloidosis was thought to be rare, undiagnosable, and incurable. However, recently it has been discovered to be common, diagnosable, and treatable. This knowledge has led to a resurgence in nuclear imaging with 99mTc-pyrophosphate-a scan once believed to be extinct-to identify cardiac amyloidosis, particularly in patients with heart failure but preserved ejection fraction. The renewed interest in 99mTc-pyrophosphate imaging has compelled technologists and physicians to reacquaint themselves with the procedure. Although 99mTc-pyrophosphate imaging is relatively simple, interpretation and diagnostic accuracy require an in-depth knowledge of amyloidosis etiology, clinical manifestations, disease progression, and treatment. Diagnosing cardiac amyloidosis is complicated because typical signs and symptoms are nonspecific and usually attributed to other cardiac disorders. In addition, physicians must be able to differentiate between monoclonal immunoglobulin light-chain amyloidosis (AL) and transthyretin amyloidosis (ATTR). Several clinical and noninvasive diagnostic imaging (echocardiography and cardiac MRI) red flags have been identified that suggest a patient may have cardiac amyloidosis. The intent of these red flags is to raise physician suspicion of cardiac amyloidosis and guide a series of steps (a diagnostic algorithm) for narrowing down and diagnosing the specific amyloid type. One element in the diagnostic algorithm is to identify monoclonal proteins indicative of AL. Monoclonal proteins are detected by serum or urine immunofixation electrophoresis and serum free light-chain assay. Another element is identifying and grading cardiac amyloid deposition using 99mTc-pyrophosphate imaging. When monoclonal proteins are present and the 99mTc-pyrophosphate scan is positive, the patient should be further evaluated for cardiac AL. The absence of monoclonal proteins and a positive 99mTc-pyrophosphate scan is diagnostic for cardiac ATTR. Patients with cardiac ATTR need to undergo genetic testing to differentiate between wild-type ATTR and variant ATTR. This article is the third in a 3-part series in this issue of the Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology Part 1 reviewed amyloidosis etiology and outlined 99mTc-pyrophosphate study acquisition. Part 2 described 99mTc-pyrophosphate image quantification and protocol technical considerations. This article discusses scan interpretation along with cardiac amyloidosis diagnosis and treatment.

Improving DXA Quality by Avoiding Common Technical and Diagnostic Pitfalls: Part 1.

Dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is an accurate means to assess bone mineral density, determine the risk of a fragility fracture, and monitor response to therapy. Despite its seemingly straightforward nature-the review of 2-to-3 nondiagnostic images and a few automatically generated numbers-the proper performance and interpretation of DXA can often be complex. It is complex because it is highly dependent on many factors, such as image acquisition, processing, analysis, and subsequent examination interpretation. Each step is subject to potential errors, artifacts, and diagnostic pitfalls; hence, meticulous attention must be paid to the technique by both the technologist and the interpreting physician to provide high-quality results and, in turn, maximize the examination's clinical utility. This article is part 1 of a 2-part series. Part 1 will begin with a review of bone physiology and osteoporosis etiology, followed by a discussion of the principles underlying DXA and the technical procedure. Part 2 will focus on DXA interpretation and discuss scanning pitfalls and clues to recognizing issues and improving scan quality.

Diuretic Renal Scintigraphy Protocol Considerations.

Diuretic renal scintigraphy plays a critical diagnostic role by providing a physiologic means for differentiating between obstructive and nonobstructive hydronephrosis as well as assessing the function of the affected kidney. The exam accuracy is highly dependent upon and benefits from close attention to the protocol. This article reviews kidney anatomy and physiology, patient preparation, available radiopharmaceuticals, diuretic administration, acquisition, processing, quantification, and interpretation criteria.

Root Cause Analysis in Nuclear Medicine for Sentinel Events.

A sentinel event is any unexpected event that results in death or serious physical or psychological injury to a patient unrelated to a patient's illness. Establishing and determining cause-and-effect relationships is key to preventing future sentinel/near-miss events. However, it can be challenging to establish a cause-and-effect relationship when a process involves multiple steps or people. Root cause analysis (RCA) is a technique that can pinpoint the causes of sentinel events for medical procedures involving numerous steps and people. This article provides a rationale for RCA and the basic steps in a nonmedical RCA investigation. The article then describes a more detailed, nine-step RCA approach for investigating sentinel events and illustrates the technique with a nuclear medicine example.

The nuclear cardiology report: problems, predictors, and improvement. A report from the ICANL database.

BACKGROUND: The quality of nuclear cardiology reports is essential for the effective communication of results of cardiac radionuclide imaging and has never been evaluated for compliance with the ICANL standards. This retrospective study was designed to evaluate required reporting elements and site characteristics to determine differences in the compliance of applicant nuclear cardiology laboratories with The ICANL Standards, and identify potential mechanisms for improvement. METHODS AND RESULTS: Site characteristics and the 18 elements of the ICANL nuclear cardiology reporting standard ranked by level of importance were evaluated in 1,301 labs applying for accreditation from 1/1/08 to 1/1/09. A majority of labs were non-compliant (57.2%) with ≥1 of the 18 elements, mean number of errors 2.13 ± 2.58. There were significant differences among applications with different accreditation decisions, first application and repeat applications, and region of the United States. Laboratories with multiple re-accreditations had significantly increased compliance. These findings were confirmed following analysis of the ranked importance of the non-compliant elements. CONCLUSIONS: Nuclear cardiology reports have a high degree of non-compliance with the current ICANL standards. There were identifiable characteristics defining labs more likely to be non-compliant. Feedback from prior applications improves compliance with reporting standards on subsequent applications.

Diuretic Renal Scintigraphy: The State of Practice and a Potential Opportunity for Standardization.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess variation in diuretic renal scintigraphy (DRS) practice patterns and quantify compliance with the national guidance in a large cohort of laboratories from different institutions and practice settings across the United States. METHODS: By means of an institutional review board-approved protocol, we extracted 107 facility-specific, adult DRS protocols and associated 174 reports from the Intersocietal Accreditation Commission database, representing all laboratories applying for genitourinary scintigraphy certification during the 2016 to 2018 accreditation cycle. From these, we assessed 40 variables regarding facilities and staffing, patient preparation, examination technique and acquisition, image processing, and reporting. RESULTS: Review of protocols and reports demonstrates a very high degree of variability in DRS practice across the United States and suboptimal compliance with societal guidelines and practice parameters. Some of the more variable or underreported parameters include the use of patient hydration, type and dosage of radiopharmaceutical, dosage and timing of diuretic administration, quantitative parameters assessed, and report content. CONCLUSION: There is high variability in the performance and reporting of DRS among laboratories applying for accreditation, similar to that seen in studies of other nuclear medicine examinations. The wide degree of practice variance may have a significant impact on diagnostic accuracy and patient management, with inaccurate or incomplete results. This survey impresses the need for standardization and improved quality of this important nuclear medicine examination.