Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
      • JNMT Supplement
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • Continuing Education
    • JNMT Podcast
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Institutional and Non-member
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNMT
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA Requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • SNMMI
    • JNMT
    • JNM
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology
  • SNMMI
    • JNMT
    • JNM
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • Continuing Education
    • JNMT Podcast
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Institutional and Non-member
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNMT
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA Requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • Watch or Listen to JNMT Podcast
  • Visit SNMMI on Facebook
  • Join SNMMI on LinkedIn
  • Follow SNMMI on Twitter
  • Subscribe to JNMT RSS feeds
Review ArticleContinuing Education

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

April Mann, Mary Beth Farrell, Jessica Williams and Danny Basso
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology June 2017, 45 (2) 67-74; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2967/jnmt.117.194704
April Mann
1Hartford HealthCare Corporation, Hartford, Connecticut
CNMT, NCT, RT(N), FSNMMI-TS
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mary Beth Farrell
2Intersocietal Accreditation Commission, Ellicott City, Maryland
CNMT, FSNMMI-TS
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jessica Williams
3Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and
CNMT, RT(N), FSNNMI-TS
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Danny Basso
4University Health Care System, Augusta, Georgia
CNMT, NCT FSNMMI-TS
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Supplemental
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Additional Files
  • FIGURE 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 1.

    Technologists’ survey responses when asked what 3 words or phrases come to mind when thinking of quality in nuclear medicine and molecular imaging. The larger the text font, the more frequently word was used.

  • FIGURE 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 2.

    Quality measure performance, effectiveness, and frequency.

  • FIGURE 3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 3.

    Respondent level of agreement with 7 quality statements.

  • FIGURE 4.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 4.

    Minimum education standard for nuclear medicine technologists.

Tables

  • Figures
  • Additional Files
    • View popup
    TABLE 1

    Respondent Demographic Data

    Variablen (%)Variablen (%)
    Membership status3,811Work setting2,481
     SNMMI-TS member1,609 (41.2) Hospital (academic/community)1,501 (60.5)
     Former member1,466 (37.6) Nonhospital (private/outpatient)722 (29.1)
     Never a member736 (18.9) Other258 (10.4)
    Current position3,906Area of expertise2,614
     Staff technologist1,743 (44.6) Nuclear medicine1,663 (63.6)
     Chief/lead technologist1,237 (31.7) Cardiology532 (20.4)
     Manager/administrator213 (5.4%) Molecular imaging +oncology283 (10.8)
     Educator/instructor104 (2.7) Radiology68 (2.6)
     Student64 (1.6)Medical physics23 (0.9)
     Researcher33 (0.8) Radiopharmacy14 (0.5)
     Unemployed157 (4.0) Other31 (1.2)
     Retired81 (2.1)Years working in field2,601
     Other274 (7.0) <1120 (4.6)
    % time working in nuclear medicine2,499 2–5336 (12.9)
     <50%405 (16.2) 6–10447 (17.2)
     50%–80%401 (16.0) 11–20686 (26.4)
     >80%1,693 (67.7) >201,012 (38.9)
    CertificationsEducation2,660
     NMTCB (CNMT)2,543 (63.4) Certificate118 (4.4)
     ARRT (RT(N))1,467 (36.6) Associate’s degree758 (28.5)
    Specialty Bachelor’s degree1,437 (54.0)
     CT394 (9.8) Master’s degree or higher347 (13.0)
     PET032 (6.0)Currently licensed1,977
     NCT133 (3.3) Yes1,882 (95.2%)
     MRI73 (1.8) No95 (4.8)
     None38 (1.4)Sex618
    State licensure required2,746 Female1,590 (60.7)
     Yes1,997 (72.7) Male1,028 (39.3)
     No656 (23.9)
     Unsure/outside of United States93 (3.4)
    Age (y)2651
     <2567 (2.5)
     25–34574 (21.7)
     35–44709 (26.7)
     45–54616 (23.2)
     55–64562 (21.2)
     >65123 (4.6)
    • NMTCB = Nuclear Medicine Technology Certification Board; CNMT = Certified Nuclear Medicine Technologist; ARRT = American Registry of Radiologic Technologists; NCT = Nuclear Cardiology Technologist.

    • View popup
    TABLE 2

    Definition of 5 Distinct Quality Terms That Are Often Confused That Should Not Be Used Interchangeably

    TermDefinition
    Quality careCare based on scientific, medical evidence that improves the health and life of the patient while also considering the patient’s preferences.
    QIThe formal process of examining and then improving the performance or enhancing patient care based on the analysis of data.
    QCProcedures to ensure that equipment or processes adhere to established standards.
    Quality assessmentThe evaluation of the quality of care.
    Quality assuranceThe processes or programs intended to improve or assure the quality of patient care through evaluation or assessment.
    • View popup
    TABLE 3

    Six Aims for Quality Health Care

    AimDefinition
    SafeAvoidance of injuries or harm from care that is intended to help patients
    EfficientAvoidance of waste, which includes wasting equipment, supplies, ideas, time, and energy
    EffectiveProvision of care based on scientific knowledge and evidence along with the avoidance of care that is not likely to benefit the patient
    Personalized or patient-centeredProvision of care that respects the patient’s values and responds to the patient’s preferences and needs
    TimelyReduction of time waiting and potentially harmful delays in care for those who give and receive care
    EquitableProvision of care where quality does not vary based on characteristics such as sex, ethnicity, geographic location, or socioeconomic status
    • View popup
    TABLE 4

    2016 National Quality Strategy Six Priorities

    PriorityLong-term goal
    Make care safe by reducing harm from careDecrease hospital admissions and readmissions
    Reduce medical errors and harm from medical care
    Reduce inappropriate or unnecessary care
    Ensure patients and families are engaged in care decisionsImprove patient experience
    Use shared decision making between providers and patients
    Enable patients in managing their care
    Make communication and coordination of care effectiveImprove communication and transitions across settings
    Improve quality of life for chronically ill and disabled
    Integrate care across communities and reduce health disparity
    Promote prevention of leading causes of deathImprove cardiovascular disease health socially, economically, and environmentally
    Promote healthy lifestyle
    Work with communities to promote use of best practicesPromote community interventions and community health
    Make health care more affordableEnsure quality, accessibility, and affordability of care
    Reduce waste and fraud
    • Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services National Quality Strategy 2016 (20).

Additional Files

  • Figures
  • Tables
  • Supplemental Data

    Files in this Data Supplement:

    • Supplemental Data
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology: 45 (2)
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology
Vol. 45, Issue 2
June 1, 2017
  • Table of Contents
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Nuclear Medicine Technologists’ Perception and Current Assessment of Quality: A Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Technologist Section Survey
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology web site.
Citation Tools
Nuclear Medicine Technologists’ Perception and Current Assessment of Quality: A Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Technologist Section Survey
April Mann, Mary Beth Farrell, Jessica Williams, Danny Basso
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology Jun 2017, 45 (2) 67-74; DOI: 10.2967/jnmt.117.194704

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Nuclear Medicine Technologists’ Perception and Current Assessment of Quality: A Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Technologist Section Survey
April Mann, Mary Beth Farrell, Jessica Williams, Danny Basso
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology Jun 2017, 45 (2) 67-74; DOI: 10.2967/jnmt.117.194704
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • QUALITY DEFINITION
    • SOCIETY OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE AND MOLECULAR IMAGING TECHNOLOGIST SECTION (SNMMI-TS) AND QUALITY
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • CONCLUSION
    • DISCLOSURE
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Supplemental
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Mastering the Art of Clinical Education: Essential Resources for Clinical Instructors
  • The Importance of Quality in Ventilation-Perfusion Imaging
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Illuminating the Hidden: Standardizing Cardiac MIBG Imaging for Sympathetic Dysfunction
  • PET/CT Case Series: Unmasking the Mystery of Cardiac Sarcoidosis
  • Delivery Methods of Radiopharmaceuticals: Exploring Global Strategies to Minimize Occupational Radiation Exposure
Show more Continuing Education

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • quality
  • image quality
  • technologist
  • quality improvement
SNMMI

© 2025 SNMMI

Powered by HighWire