Nuclear Medicine Technologists’ Perception and Current Assessment of Quality: A Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Technologist Section Survey

Abstract

CE credit: For CE credit, you can access the test for this article, as well as additional JNMT CE tests, online at https://www.snmmilearningcenter.org. Complete the test online no later than June 2020. Your online test will be scored immediately. You may make 3 attempts to pass the test and must answer 80% of the questions correctly to receive 1.0 CEH (Continuing Education Hour) credit. SNMMI members will have their CEH credit added to their VOICE transcript automatically; nonmembers will be able to print out a CE certificate upon successfully completing the test. The online test is free to SNMMI members; nonmembers must pay $15.00 by credit card when logging onto the website to take the test.In 2015, the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Technologist Section (SNMMI-TS) launched a multiyear quality initiative to help prepare the technologist workforce for an evidence-based health-care delivery system that focuses on quality. To best implement the quality strategy, the SNMMI-TS first surveyed technologists to ascertain their perception of quality and current measurement of quality indicators. Methods: An internet survey was sent to 27,989 e-mail contacts. Questions related to demographic data, perceptions of quality, quality measurement, and opinions on the minimum level of education are discussed in this article. Results: A total of 4,007 (14.3%) responses were received. When asked to list 3 words or phrases that represent quality, there were a plethora of different responses. The top 3 responses were image quality, quality control, and technologist education or competency. Surveying patient satisfaction was the most common quality measure (80.9%), followed by evaluation of image quality (78.2%). Evaluation of image quality (90.3%) and equipment functionality (89.4%) were considered the most effective measures. Technologists' differentiation between quality, quality improvement, quality control, quality assurance, and quality assessment seemed ambiguous. Respondents were confident in their ability to assess and improve quality at their workplace (91.9%) and agreed their colleagues were committed to delivering quality work. Of note, 70.7% of respondents believed that quality is directly related to the technologist's level of education. Correspondingly, respondents felt there should be a minimum level of education (99.5%) and that certification or registry should be required (74.4%). Most respondents (59.6%) felt that a Bachelor's degree should be the minimum level of education, followed by an Associate's degree (40.4%). Conclusion: To best help nuclear medicine technologists provide quality care, the SNMMI-TS queried technologists to discern perceptions of quality in nuclear medicine. The results show that technologists believe image quality and quality control are the most important determinants. Most respondents felt that quality is directly related to the level of education of the technologist acquiring the scan. However, the responses obtained also demonstrated variation in perception of what ...

The Importance of Quality in Ventilation–Perfusion Imaging

“…In 2015, the Quality Committee of the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Technologist Section developed a survey to identify the level of knowledge about the above-mentioned concepts and principles of quality among nuclear medicine technologists (2). Created by the Quality Committee in collaboration with McKinley Advisors, this survey, which was administered from July 28 to August 18, 2016, was necessary to gain insight into how quality is viewed, measured, and learned in the nuclear medicine field.…”

“…In addition, the results showed the immediate need to develop education for technologists and create awareness about quality across the continuum of patient care and how it relates to imaging procedures. The full survey results and findings were published in the June 2017 edition of the Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology (2).…”

“…Although the strong emphasis on quality systems still seems relatively new to many health care professionals, in 2001 the Institute of Medicine published a landmark report identifying major gaps in the American health care system (1,2). This report urgently called for closure of these gaps by a redesign of the American health care system and provided overarching principles and specific direction for policy makers, health care leaders, clinicians, regulators, purchasers, and others health care providers (2).…”

“…Although the strong emphasis on quality systems still seems relatively new to many health care professionals, in 2001 the Institute of Medicine published a landmark report identifying major gaps in the American health care system (1,2). This report urgently called for closure of these gaps by a redesign of the American health care system and provided overarching principles and specific direction for policy makers, health care leaders, clinicians, regulators, purchasers, and others health care providers (2). These principles also included 6 elements every health care system should encompass to achieve high-quality patient care: safety (avoiding injuries to patients from the care that is intended to help them (1)); effectiveness (providing services based on scientific knowledge to all who could benefit, and refraining from providing services to those not likely to benefit (1)); patientcenteredness (providing care that is respectful of and responsive to individual patient preferences, needs, and values, and ensuring that patient values guide all clinical decisions); timeliness (reducing waits and sometimes-harmful delays both for those who receive care and for those who give care (1)); efficiency (avoiding waste, including waste of equipment, supplies, ideas, and energy (1)); and equitability (providing care that does not vary in quality because of personal characteristics such as sex, ethnicity, geographic location, and socioeconomic status (1)).…”

The importance of quality management systems in nuclear medicine departments

“…10 In 2015, the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (SNMMI) Technologist Section (TS) conducted a large internet survey across 27,989 e-mail contacts, as part of the multiyear quality initiative by the SNMMI-TS to help prepare the technologist workforce for an evidence-based healthcare delivery system that focuses on quality. 11 It found that most technologists perceive quality to be related to image quality and QC and found a gap in the degree of understanding related to the definition of quality, its measurement, and methods to achieve it. The SNMMI-TS is planning on rolling out educational programs to address these gaps.…”