@article {Mann67, author = {April Mann and Mary Beth Farrell and Jessica Williams and Danny Basso}, title = {Nuclear Medicine Technologists{\textquoteright} Perception and Current Assessment of Quality: A Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Technologist Section Survey}, volume = {45}, number = {2}, pages = {67--74}, year = {2017}, doi = {10.2967/jnmt.117.194704}, publisher = {Society of Nuclear Medicine}, abstract = {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{\textquoteright} 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{\textquoteright}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{\textquoteright}s degree should be the minimum level of education, followed by an Associate{\textquoteright}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 represents quality. The SNMMI-TS can use the results of the study as a benchmark of current technologists{\textquoteright} knowledge and performance of quality measures and target educational programs to improve the quality of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging.}, issn = {0091-4916}, URL = {https://tech.snmjournals.org/content/45/2/67}, eprint = {https://tech.snmjournals.org/content/45/2/67.full.pdf}, journal = {Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology} }