WHO IS INTERPRETING NUCLEAR CARDIOLOGY STUDIES IN THE UNITED-STATES, AND WHAT ARE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR PRIVILEGES - A NATIONAL SURVEY OF INSTITUTIONAL POLICIES FROM 80 MAJOR MEDICAL-CENTERS

Citation
Vl. Sorrell et Wc. Reeves, WHO IS INTERPRETING NUCLEAR CARDIOLOGY STUDIES IN THE UNITED-STATES, AND WHAT ARE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR PRIVILEGES - A NATIONAL SURVEY OF INSTITUTIONAL POLICIES FROM 80 MAJOR MEDICAL-CENTERS, Journal of nuclear cardiology, 4(4), 1997, pp. 309-315
Citations number
13
Categorie Soggetti
Cardiac & Cardiovascular System","Radiology,Nuclear Medicine & Medical Imaging
ISSN journal
10713581
Volume
4
Issue
4
Year of publication
1997
Pages
309 - 315
Database
ISI
SICI code
1071-3581(1997)4:4<309:WIINCS>2.0.ZU;2-B
Abstract
Background. This survey was conducted to determine the guidelines used by major medical centers in the United States for obtaining hospital privileges to interpret nuclear cardiology studies. The American Colle ge of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology (ASNC) have established guidelines to help maintain an adequate level of proficiency in the practice of nuclear cardiology, These guidelines were published only recently, and many hospitals have adopted differe nt processes to obtain these privileges, It is likely that a marked di fference among institutions exists. Methods and Results. The survey wa s conducted predominantly by mailings with additional telephone commun ications if more information was needed, Chiefs of cardiovascular medi cine sections were contacted to provide information concerning the pol icy of granting nuclear cardiology privileges at his or her institutio n, The responses were tabulated in four categories and the responders were asked to comment on whether they agreed or disagreed with their o wn university's policy, Of 80 responses (68%) from 121 institutions, c ardiologists were involved in reading these studies in 62 (78%) and ra diologists were the sole interpreters in 18 (22%), ACC or ASNC guideli nes were strictly followed at 48 sites (60%). Eight (10%) and 6 (8%) o f these institutions mandated a minimum requirement of, respectively, 12 and 6 months of additional training in nuclear cardiology, Ten (13% ) of the cardiologists surveyed disagreed with their own institution's policies, primarily noting that the ACC and ASNC guidelines were more appropriate. Conclusion. The recently established ACC/ASNC guidelines clearly have had an impact on the practice of attaining privileges in nuclear cardiology and are the most commonly quoted criteria used by institutions in the United States to assess competence in nuclear card iology.