Abstract
In 2015, the SNMMI-TS launched a multi-year quality initiative to help prepare the technologist workforce for an evidence-based healthcare 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 email contacts. Questions related to demographic data, perceptions of quality, quality measurement, and opinions on the minimum level of education are discussed in this manuscript. Results: A total of 4007 (14.3%) responses were received. When asked to list three words/phrases that represent quality, there were a plethora of different responses. The top three responses were image quality, quality control (QC), and technologist education/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. Technologist’s differentiation between quality, quality improvement (QI), QC, quality assurance, and quality assessment seemed ambiguous. Respondents were very 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/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 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 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 performing the scan. However, the responses obtained also demonstrated variation in perception of what represents quality. The SNMMI-TS can use the results of the study as a benchmark of current technologists’ knowledge and performance of quality measures and target educational programs to improve quality of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging.
