RT Journal Article SR Electronic T1 Nuclear facility perception of accreditation. Results of an Intersocietal Accreditation Commission (IAC) Survey JF Journal of Nuclear Medicine JO J Nucl Med FD Society of Nuclear Medicine SP 2501 OP 2501 VO 55 IS supplement 1 A1 Mary Farrell A1 Louis Bezold A1 John Choi A1 Kevin Cockroft A1 Heather Gornik A1 Gary Heller A1 Scott Jerome A1 Sandra Katanick A1 Warren Manning YR 2014 UL http://jnm.snmjournals.org/content/55/supplement_1/2501.abstract AB 2501 Objectives The Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act (MIPPA) requires accreditation for all nonhospital suppliers of Nuclear Medicine and 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 accreditation. Methods A request to participate in an electronic survey was sent to the medical and technical directors (n=5271) of all Nuclear Medicine/PET facilities who had received IAC accreditation. Demographic information; as well as, opinions on the value of accreditation as it relates to 16 quality metrics were obtained. Results There were 664 Nuclear Medicine/PET respondents 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 (63%) 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<0.001). 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=0.029), while nonhospital-based facilities were more likely to feel accreditation is important for reimbursement (50% vs. 29%, p=<0.001). 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. The perceived improvement was greater for hospital-based facilities for which accreditation is voluntary.