Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Guided Survey Approach for Joint Commission Preparedness in Radiology

  • Quality and Safety (H Abujudeh, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Radiology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Radiology practices across the United States aspire to Joint Commission accreditation, the nation’s gold standard certification of effective, efficient, and safe patient care. Toward that end, radiology department leaders devote substantial effort searching the available literature to better understand the expectations of TJC and thus better prepare their organization for the review process. In this article, we review and summarize current recommendations and standards of practice in order to facilitate the self-assessment process.

Summary

We present an efficient, interactive survey tool that can aid practice leaders, including radiologists and administrators, as they internally survey their own departments in preparation for The Joint Commission survey process.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Important

  1. •Jointcommission.org. https://www.jointcommission.org/hap_2017_npsgs/. Accessed 1 Jan 2019. This reference was quintessential to our work as it delinated the basic expectations of The Joint Commission. Understanding these expectations allowed us to interpret The Joint Commission’s likely expectations for a radiology department which allowed us to create our tables and our survey tool.

  2. Greenes R. The radiologist as clinical activist: a time to focus outward. Proceedings the first international conference on image management and communication in patient care. Implement Impact. 1989;1:1. https://doi.org/10.1109/imac.1989.693738.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Waite S, Scott JM, Legasto A, Kolla S, Gale B, Krupinski EA. Systemic error in radiology. Am J Roentgenol. 2017;209:629–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. •Jones DN, Thomas M, Mandel CJ, Grimm J, Hannaford N, Schultz TJ, Runciman W. Where failures occur in the imaging care cycle: lessons from the radiology events register. J Am Coll Radiol. 2010;7:593–602. This reference outlined where errors and inefficiency occurs within a radiology practice. This paper was instrumental in helping us refine and direct our thinking and investigation into recommended practices.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. About the ACR AC. In: About the ACR AC | American College of Radiology. https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/ACR-Appropriateness-Criteria/About-the-ACR-AC. Accessed 3 Jan 2019.

  6. Sheng AY, Castro A, Lewiss RE. Awareness, utilization, and education of the acr appropriateness criteria: a review and future directions. J Am Coll Radiol. 2016;13:131–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Kruskal JB, Siewert B, Anderson SW, Eisenberg RL, Sosna J. Managing an acute adverse event in a radiology department. RadioGraphics. 2008;28:1237–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Siewert B, Hochman M, Eisenberg RL, Swedeen S, Brook OR. Acing The joint commission regulatory visit: running an effective and compliant safety program. RadioGraphics. 2018;38:1744–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Jaffe TA, Raiff D, Ho LM, Kim CY. Management of anticoagulant and antiplatelet medications in adults undergoing percutaneous interventions. Am J Roentgenol. 2015;205:421–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Patel IJ, Davidson JC, Nikolic B, Salazar GM, Schwartzberg MS, Walker TG, Saad WA. Consensus guidelines for periprocedural management of coagulation status and hemostasis risk in percutaneous image-guided interventions. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2012;23:727–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Patel IJ, Davidson JC, Nikolic B, Salazar GM, Schwartzberg MS, Walker TG, Saad WE. Addendum of newer anticoagulants to the SIR consensus guideline. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2013;24:641–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Corso R, Vacirca F, Patelli C, Leni D. Use of “Time-Out” checklist in interventional radiology procedures as a tool to enhance patient safety. Radiol Med (Torino). 2014;119:828–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. ACR Contrast Manual. In: Contrast Manual | American College of Radiology. https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Contrast-Manual. Accessed 12 Jan 2019.

  14. Bush WH. Treatment of acute contrast reactions. Radiology Life Support 2009:31–51.

  15. Beckett KR, Moriarity AK, Langer JM. Safe use of contrast media: what the radiologist needs to know. RadioGraphics. 2015;35:1738–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Nandwana SB, Walls DG, Torres WE. Radiology department preparedness for the management of severe acute iodinated contrast reactions: do we need to change our approach? Am J Roentgenol. 2015;205:90–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Delaney A, Carter A, Fisher M. The prevention of anaphylactoid reactions to iodinated radiological contrast media: a systematic review. BMC Med Imaging. 2006. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2342-6-2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Practice Parameters and Technical Standards. In: American College of Radiology. https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Practice-Parameters-and-Technical-Standards. Accessed 16 Jan 2019.

  19. Ploussi A, Efstathopoulos EP. Importance of establishing radiation protection culture in radiology department. World J Radiol. 2016;8:142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Miller DL, Kwon D, Bonavia GH. Reference levels for patient radiation doses in interventional radiology: proposed initial values for U.S. practice. Radiology. 2009;253:753–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Stecker MS, Balter S, Towbin RB, et al. Guidelines for patient radiation dose management. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2009.04.037.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Steele JR, Jones AK, Ninan EP. Quality initiatives: establishing an interventional radiology patient radiation safety program. RadioGraphics. 2012;32:277–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Jointcommission.org. https://www.jointcommission.org/standards_information/up.aspx. Accessed 19 Jan 2019.

  24. Rubio EI, Hogan L. Time-out: its radiologys turn—incidence of wrong-patient or wrong-study errors. Am J Roentgenol. 2015;205:941–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Ahmed A, Niazi IK, Uddin I, Iqbal A, Sabir M, Awan MS. Time out in interventional radiology. Clin Radiol. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2017.06.063.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Rafei P, Walser EM, Duncan JR, et al. Society of interventional radiology ir pre-procedure patient safety checklist by the safety and health committee. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2016;27:695–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Aakre KT, Johnson CD. Plain-radiographic image labeling: a process to improve clinical outcomes. J Am Coll Radiol. 2006;3:949–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Angle JF, Siddiqi NH, Wallace MJ, Kundu S, Stokes L, Wojak JC, Cardella JF. Quality improvement guidelines for percutaneous transcatheter embolization. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2010;21:1479–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Landau E, Hirschorn D, Koutras I, Malek A, Demissie S. Preventing errors in laterality. J Digit Imaging. 2014;28:240–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Hussain S. Communicating critical results in radiology. J Am Coll Radiol. 2010;7:148–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Practice Parameters for Documentation and Reporting | American College of Radiology. In: American College of Radiology | American College of Radiology. https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Practice-Parameters-and-Technical-Standards/Practice-Parameters-for-Documentation-and-Reporting. Accessed 3 Feb 2019.

  32. Siewert B, Brook OR, Hochman M, Eisenberg RL. Impact of communication errors in radiology on patient care, customer satisfaction, and work-flow efficiency. Am J Roentgenol. 2016;206:573–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Singh H, Arora HS, Vij MS, Rao R, Khan MM, Petersen LA. Communication outcomes of critical imaging results in a computerized notification system. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2007;14:459–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Waite S, Scott JM, Drexler I, Martino J, Legasto A, Gale B, Kolla S. Communication errors in radiology—pitfalls and how to avoid them. Clin Imaging. 2018;51:266–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Brook OR, O’Connell AM, Thornton E, Eisenberg RL, Mendiratta-Lala M, Kruskal JB. Quality initiatives: anatomy and pathophysiology of errors occurring in clinical radiology practice. RadioGraphics. 2010;30:1401–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Bruno MA, Walker EA, Abujudeh HH. Understanding and confronting our mistakes: the epidemiology of error in radiology and strategies for error reduction. RadioGraphics. 2015;35:1668–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Whang JS, Baker SR, Patel R, Luk L, Castro A. the causes of medical malpractice suits against radiologists in the United States. Radiology. 2013;266:548–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Mirza SK, Tragon TR, Fukui MB, Hartman MS, Hartman AL. Microbiology for radiologists: how to minimize infection transmission in the radiology department. RadioGraphics. 2015;35:1231–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Digumarthy SR, Vining R, Tabari A, Nandimandalam S, Otrakji A, Shepard JO, Kalra MK. Process improvement for reducing side discrepancies in radiology reports. Acta Radiol Open. 2018;7:205846011879472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Ganeshan D, Duong P-AT, Probyn L, Lenchik L, Mcarthur TA, Retrouvey M, Ghobadi EH, Desouches SL, Pastel D, Francis IR. Structured reporting in radiology. Acad Radiol. 2018;25:66–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Lacson R, Prevedello LM, Andriole KP, Oconnor SD, Roy C, Gandhi T, Dalal AK, Sato L, Khorasani R. Four-year impact of an alert notification system on closed-loop communication of critical test results. Am J Roentgenol. 2014;203:933–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, 185 South Orange Ave., MSB F-506, Newark, NJ, 07103, USA

    Nahill H. Matari, Giancarlo Di Marco Serra & Abdel-Kareem Beidas

  2. Division of Emergency Radiology, Department of Radiology, Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, 500 University Drive, Mail Code H-066, Hershey, PA, 17033, USA

    Michael A. Bruno

  3. Department of Radiology, Detroit Medical Center, Envision Physician Services, 4201 St. Antoine - Detroit Receiving Hospital 3L-8, Detroit, MI, 48201, USA

    Hani Abujudeh

Authors
  1. Nahill H. Matari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Giancarlo Di Marco Serra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Abdel-Kareem Beidas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Michael A. Bruno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Hani Abujudeh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nahill H. Matari.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Nahill Matari, Giancarlo Di Marco Serra, Michael Bruno, and Hani Abujudeh declare no potential conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical collection on Quality and Safety.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Matari, N.H., Di Marco Serra, G., Beidas, AK. et al. A Guided Survey Approach for Joint Commission Preparedness in Radiology. Curr Radiol Rep 7, 29 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40134-019-0339-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40134-019-0339-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation