Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2016
Improved compliance with reporting standards: A retrospective analysis of Intersocietal Accreditation Commission Nuclear Cardiology Laboratories.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Maddux P Tim, Farrell Mary Beth, Ewing Joseph A, Tilkemeier Peter L
Аннотация
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.
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.