The Experts below are selected from a list of 95397 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Ronald R. Price - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
tu a 211 01 acr mri Accreditation process and pitfalls
Medical Physics, 2012Co-Authors: Ronald R. PriceAbstract:ACR MRI Accreditation was initiated in 1996. Over the years, the Accreditation process and requirements have evolved in order to keep pace with the rapidly changing MRI technology. This presentation will briefly review changes that have been initiated in response to the changing technology along with the evolving changes in the responsibilities of the Medical Physicist for providing advice and support for system performance, quality assurance and safety. Specific differences in the Accreditation process between conventional general‐purpose MRI systems and specialty (extremity) systems used for anatomical imaging and systems used for breast imaging will be discussed. Additional requirements that have resulted from the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act (MIPPA), common reasons for Accreditation failure and the anticipated changes and updates to the 2004 ACR MRIQuality Control Manual will also be discussed. Learning Objectives: 1. Review the responsibilities of the Medical Physicist in the Accreditation process 2. Discuss the CMS/MIPPA Accreditation requirements as of January 1, 2012. 3. Review differences in breast and specialty (extremity) system Accreditation 4. Discuss common reasons for Accreditation failure 5. Discuss anticipated changes and updates in the ACR MRIQuality Control Manual
-
th a 342 01 acr mr Accreditation update the role of the medical physicist
Medical Physics, 2008Co-Authors: Ronald R. PriceAbstract:In 2006, the ACR council approved a resolution requiring the current ACR MRI Accreditation Program to be redesigned into a modular program. The current program is limited to only whole‐body and cardiac Accreditation. The new modular program will offer six clinical modules and is designed to allow a facility to have an Accreditation that is more appropriately matched to the individual practice and the patient population being served. The six modules are: body, head, MR angiography (MRA), spine, musculoskeletal and cardiac. A breast MR Accreditation program is currently under development; however, will not be one of these MR modules. Instead, it will be part of the Breast Imaging Accreditation Program. Also, an Accreditation program specifically designed for special‐purpose orthopedic systems is under development. This continuing education course will review the current status and requirements of the ACR Whole Body MRI Accreditation Program, anticipated changes related to the proposed modular program and anticipated changes in the MRIQuality Control Manual as related to the Annual Medical Physicist Performance Survey. Educational Objectives: 1. Review the role of the Medical Physicist in the current Whole Body Accreditation Program with emphasis on the requirements of the annual performance survey. 2. Discuss the status of the proposed ACR modular Accreditation program as well as the new initiatives into cardiac and orthopedic Accreditation and the anticipated impact that these changes will have on the role of the medical physicist. 3. Discuss special Accreditation considerations related to 3T systems and for systems with parallel imaging capability.
Jeffrey Braithwaite - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The association between first-time Accreditation and the delivery of recommended care: a before and after study in the Faroe Islands
'Springer Science and Business Media LLC', 2021Co-Authors: Maria Daniella Bergholt, Jeffrey Braithwaite, Christian Von Plessen, Anne Mette Falstie-jensen, Peter Hibbert, Barbara Joensen Eysturoy, Gunnvá Guttesen, Tóra Róin, Jan Brink Valentin, Soren Paaske JohnsenAbstract:Abstract Background Significant resources are spent on hospital Accreditation worldwide. However, documentation of the effects of Accreditation on processes, quality of care and outcomes in healthcare remain scarce. This study aimed to examine changes in the delivery of patient care in accordance with clinical guidelines (recommended care) after first-time Accreditation in a care setting not previously exposed to systematic quality improvement initiatives. Methods We conducted a before and after study based on medical record reviews in connection with introducing first-time Accreditation. We included patients with stroke/transient ischemic attack, bleeding gastric ulcer, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), childbirth, heart failure and hip fracture treated at public, non-psychiatric Faroese hospitals during 2012–2013 (before Accreditation) or 2017–2018 (after Accreditation). The intervention was the implementation of a modified second version of The Danish Healthcare Quality Program (DDKM) from 2014 to 2016 including an on-site Accreditation survey in the Faroese hospitals. Recommended care was assessed using 63 disease specific patient level process performance measures in seven clinical conditions. We calculated the fulfillment and changes in the opportunity-based composite score and the all-or-none score. Results We included 867 patient pathways (536 before and 331 after). After Accreditation, the total opportunity-based composite score was marginally higher though the change did not reach statistical significance (adjusted percentage point difference (%): 4.4%; 95% CI: − 0.7 to 9.6). At disease level, patients with stroke/transient ischemic attack, bleeding gastric ulcer, COPD and childbirth received a higher proportion of recommended care after Accreditation. No difference was found for heart failure and diabetes. Hip fracture received less recommended care after Accreditation. The total all-or-none score, which is the probability of a patient receiving all recommended care, was significantly higher after Accreditation (adjusted relative risk (RR): 2.32; 95% CI: 2.03 to 2.67). The improvement was particularly strong for patients with COPD (RR: 16.22; 95% CI: 14.54 to 18.10). Conclusion Hospitals were in general more likely to provide recommended care after first-time Accreditation
-
hospital Accreditation staff experiences and perceptions
International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, 2018Co-Authors: Soren Bie Bogh, Ane Blom, Ditte Caroline Raben, Jeffrey Braithwaite, Bettina Ravnborg Thude, Erik Hollnagel, Christian Von PlessenAbstract:The purpose of this paper is to understand how staff at various levels perceive and understand hospital Accreditation generally and in relation to quality improvement (QI) specifically.,In a newly accredited Danish hospital, the authors conducted semi-structured interviews to capture broad ranging experiences. Medical doctors, nurses, a quality coordinator and a quality department employee participated. Interviews were audio recorded and subjected to framework analysis.,Staff reported that The Danish Healthcare Quality Programme affected management priorities: office time and working on documentation, which reduced time with patients and on improvement activities. Organisational structures were improved during preparation for Accreditation. Staff perceived that the hospital was better prepared for new QI initiatives after Accreditation; staff found disease specific requirements unnecessary. Other areas benefited from Accreditation. Interviewees expected that organisational changes, owing to Accreditation, would be sustained and that the QI focus would continue.,Accreditation is a critical and complete hospital review, including areas that often are neglected. Accreditation dominates hospital agendas during preparation and surveyor visits, potentially reducing patient care and other QI initiatives. Improvements are less likely to occur in areas that other QI initiatives addressed. Yet, Accreditation creates organisational foundations for future QI initiatives.,The authors study contributes new insights into how hospital staff at different organisational levels perceive and understand Accreditation.
-
predictors of the effectiveness of Accreditation on hospital performance a nationwide stepped wedge study
International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 2017Co-Authors: Soren Bie Bogh, Ditte Caroline Raben, Jeffrey Braithwaite, Erik Hollnagel, Anne Mette Falstiejensen, Rene Holst, Soren Paaske JohnsenAbstract:Objective To identify predictors of the effectiveness of hospital Accreditation on process performance measures. Design A multi-level, longitudinal, stepped-wedge, nationwide study. Participants All patients admitted for acute stroke, heart failure, ulcers, diabetes, breast cancer and lung cancer at Danish hospitals. Intervention The Danish Healthcare Quality Programme that was designed to create a framework for continuous quality improvement. Main outcome measure(s) Changes in week-by-week trends of hospitals' process performance measures during the study period of 269 weeks prior to, during and post-Accreditations. Process performance measures were based on 43 different processes of care obtained from national clinical quality registries. Analyses were stratified according to condition, type of care (i.e. treatment, diagnostics, secondary prevention and patient monitoring) and hospital characteristics (i.e. university affiliation, location, size, experience with Accreditation and Accreditation compliance). Results A total of 1 624 518 processes of care were included. The impact of Accreditation differed across the conditions. During Accreditation, heart failure and breast cancer showed less improvement than other disease areas. Across all conditions, diagnostic processes improved less rapidly than other types of processes. However, after stratifying the data by hospital characteristics, process performance measures improved more uniformly. In respect of the measures that had an unsatisfactory level of quality, the processes related to diabetes, diagnostics and patient monitoring all responded to Accreditation and showed an increased improvement during the preparatory work. Conclusion Hospital characteristics were not found to be predictors for the effects of Accreditation, whereas conditions and types of care to some extent predicted the effectiveness.
-
levers for change an investigation of how Accreditation programmes can promote consumer engagement in healthcare
International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 2016Co-Authors: Reece Hinchcliff, David Greenfield, Anne Hogden, Pooria Sarramiforoushani, Joanne Travaglia, Jeffrey BraithwaiteAbstract:Objective To examine how consumer engagement (CE) can be promoted through Australian Accreditation programmes. Design A nation-wide qualitative study completed in 2012. Setting All eight Australian States and Territories. Participants Two-hundred and fifty-eight healthcare stakeholders from the acute, primary and aged care sectors. Intervention Forty-seven individual and group interviews were undertaken. Questions elicited views on the dimensions and utility of CE promotion by Accreditation programmes. Main Outcome Measure Healthcare stakeholders’ views on the dimensions and utility of CE promotion by Accreditation programmes. Results Four mechanisms of CE promotion were identified. Two involved requirements for health service organizations to meet CE-related standards related to consumer experience and satisfaction surveys, and consumer participation in organizational governance processes. Two mechanisms for promoting CE through Accreditation processes were also identified, concerning consumer participation in the development and revision of standards, and the implementation of Accreditation surveys. Accreditation programmes were viewed as important drivers of CE, yet concerns were raised regarding the organizational investments needed to meet programmes’ requirements. Conclusions Accreditation programmes use diverse mechanisms as levers for change to promote CE in healthcare. These mechanisms and their inter-relationships require careful consideration by Accreditation agencies and health policymakers to maximize their potential benefits, while maintaining stakeholder engagement in programmes.
-
improvement in quality of hospital care during Accreditation a nationwide stepped wedge study
International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 2016Co-Authors: Soren Bie Bogh, Jeffrey Braithwaite, Erik Hollnagel, Anne Mette Falstiejensen, Rene Holst, Soren Paaske JohnsenAbstract:Objective To assess changes over time in quality of hospital care in relation to the first Accreditation cycle in Denmark. Design, setting and participants We performed a multi-level, longitudinal, stepped-wedge, nationwide study of process performance measures to evaluate the impact of a mandatory Accreditation programme in all Danish public hospitals. Patient-level data ( n = 1 624 518 processes of care) on stroke, heart failure, ulcer, diabetes, breast cancer and lung cancer care were obtained from national clinical quality registries. Intervention The Danish Healthcare Quality Programme was introduced in 2009, aiming to create a framework for continuous quality improvement. Main outcome Changes in week-by-week trends of hospital care during the study period of 269 weeks prior to, during and post-Accreditation. Results The quality of hospital care improved over time throughout the study period. The overall positive change in trend odds ratio (OR) = 1.002 per week; 95% confidence interval (CI: 0.997–1.006) observed when comparing the period during Accreditation with the period prior to Accreditation was not significant. However, when restricting the analyses to processes of care where the performance did not meet target values for satisfactory quality prior to Accreditation, we found a significant positive change in trend (OR = 1.006 per week; 95% CI: 1.001–1.011). When comparing the post-Accreditation period with the period during Accreditation, we found a significantly reduced trend (OR = 0.994 per week; 95% CI: 0.988–0.999), indicating the improvement in quality of care continued but at a lower rate than during Accreditation. Conclusion These findings support the hypothesis that hospital Accreditation leads to improvements in patient care.
Prem Soman - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the association of imaging equipment age with other quality metrics and successful laboratory Accreditation by the intersocietal Accreditation commission
Echocardiography-a Journal of Cardiovascular Ultrasound and Allied Techniques, 2019Co-Authors: Saurabh Malhotra, Mary Beth Farrell, William E Katz, Prem SomanAbstract: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.
-
increasing equipment vintage predicts poor laboratory quality and delay in Accreditation an evaluation by iac echocardiography and nuclear Accreditation status
Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 2017Co-Authors: Saurabh Malhotra, Mary Beth Farrell, William E Katz, Prem SomanAbstract:Background: Investing in up to date equipment might reflect a commitment to quality. Intersocietal Accreditation Commission (IAC) Accreditation is granted or delayed depending on the fulfilment of several quality metrics. Methods: Data from echo (n=3,079) and nuclear (n=1,835) lab Accreditation
Mary Beth Farrell - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the association of imaging equipment age with other quality metrics and successful laboratory Accreditation by the intersocietal Accreditation commission
Echocardiography-a Journal of Cardiovascular Ultrasound and Allied Techniques, 2019Co-Authors: Saurabh Malhotra, Mary Beth Farrell, William E Katz, Prem SomanAbstract: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.
-
increasing equipment vintage predicts poor laboratory quality and delay in Accreditation an evaluation by iac echocardiography and nuclear Accreditation status
Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 2017Co-Authors: Saurabh Malhotra, Mary Beth Farrell, William E Katz, Prem SomanAbstract:Background: Investing in up to date equipment might reflect a commitment to quality. Intersocietal Accreditation Commission (IAC) Accreditation is granted or delayed depending on the fulfilment of several quality metrics. Methods: Data from echo (n=3,079) and nuclear (n=1,835) lab Accreditation
-
Accreditation is perceived to improve echocardiography laboratory quality results of an intersocietal Accreditation commission survey
Journal of Diagnostic Medical Sonography, 2017Co-Authors: Leo Lopez, Mary Beth Farrell, John Y. Choi, Kevin M. Cockroft, Heather L. Gornik, Gary V. Heller, Scott Jerome, Warren J. ManningAbstract:The Intersocietal Accreditation Commission (IAC) began accrediting echocardiography laboratories in 1996 to improve quality in diagnostic imaging facilities. With no existing data linking Accreditation to improved outcomes, the aim of this study was to examine the perceived value of Accreditation among individuals who have successfully achieved IAC echocardiography Accreditation. An electronic survey was sent to accredited facilities soliciting demographic data along with questions regarding the perceived value of Accreditation related to 15 quality indicators; 10.455 emails were sent with 999 responses (9.6%), and 63% of respondents reported improvement in results due to Accreditation. Of the 15 quality indicators, the process was perceived as leading to improvement by a majority for 10 of the quality indicators. Nonphysicians tended to report more improvement compared with physicians (64% vs. 54%, P = .056). The perceptions from hospital-based respondents were more favorable than nonhospital-based respo...
-
facility perception of nuclear cardiology Accreditation results of an intersocietal Accreditation commission iac survey
Journal of Nuclear Cardiology, 2015Co-Authors: Scott Jerome, Mary Beth Farrell, Louis I. Bezold, John Y. Choi, Kevin M. Cockroft, Heather L. Gornik, Sandra Katanick, Gary V. Heller, Tapan Godiwala, Warren J. ManningAbstract: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. 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. 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). 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.
Saurabh Malhotra - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the association of imaging equipment age with other quality metrics and successful laboratory Accreditation by the intersocietal Accreditation commission
Echocardiography-a Journal of Cardiovascular Ultrasound and Allied Techniques, 2019Co-Authors: Saurabh Malhotra, Mary Beth Farrell, William E Katz, Prem SomanAbstract: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.
-
increasing equipment vintage predicts poor laboratory quality and delay in Accreditation an evaluation by iac echocardiography and nuclear Accreditation status
Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 2017Co-Authors: Saurabh Malhotra, Mary Beth Farrell, William E Katz, Prem SomanAbstract:Background: Investing in up to date equipment might reflect a commitment to quality. Intersocietal Accreditation Commission (IAC) Accreditation is granted or delayed depending on the fulfilment of several quality metrics. Methods: Data from echo (n=3,079) and nuclear (n=1,835) lab Accreditation