skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: WE-AB-206-02: ACR Ultrasound Accreditation: Requirements and Pitfalls

Abstract

The involvement of medical physicists in diagnostic ultrasound imaging service is increasing due to QC and accreditation requirements. The goal of this ultrasound hands-on workshop is to demonstrate quality control (QC) testing in diagnostic ultrasound and to provide updates in ACR ultrasound accreditation requirements. The first half of this workshop will include two presentations reviewing diagnostic ultrasound QA/QC and ACR ultrasound accreditation requirements. The second half of the workshop will include live demonstrations of basic QC tests. An array of ultrasound testing phantoms and ultrasound scanners will be available for attendees to learn diagnostic ultrasound QC in a hands-on environment with live demonstrations and on-site instructors. The targeted attendees are medical physicists in diagnostic imaging. Learning Objectives: Gain familiarity with common elements of a QA/QC program for diagnostic ultrasound imaging dentify QC tools available for testing diagnostic ultrasound systems and learn how to use these tools Learn ACR ultrasound accreditation requirements Jennifer Walter is an employee of American College of Radiology on Ultrasound Accreditation.

Authors:
 [1]
  1. American College of Radiology (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22654129
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Medical Physics; Journal Volume: 43; Journal Issue: 6; Other Information: (c) 2016 American Association of Physicists in Medicine; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY; BIOMEDICAL RADIOGRAPHY; EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES; LEARNING; QUALITY CONTROL; TESTING

Citation Formats

Walter, J. WE-AB-206-02: ACR Ultrasound Accreditation: Requirements and Pitfalls. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4957768.
Walter, J. WE-AB-206-02: ACR Ultrasound Accreditation: Requirements and Pitfalls. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4957768.
Walter, J. 2016. "WE-AB-206-02: ACR Ultrasound Accreditation: Requirements and Pitfalls". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4957768.
@article{osti_22654129,
title = {WE-AB-206-02: ACR Ultrasound Accreditation: Requirements and Pitfalls},
author = {Walter, J.},
abstractNote = {The involvement of medical physicists in diagnostic ultrasound imaging service is increasing due to QC and accreditation requirements. The goal of this ultrasound hands-on workshop is to demonstrate quality control (QC) testing in diagnostic ultrasound and to provide updates in ACR ultrasound accreditation requirements. The first half of this workshop will include two presentations reviewing diagnostic ultrasound QA/QC and ACR ultrasound accreditation requirements. The second half of the workshop will include live demonstrations of basic QC tests. An array of ultrasound testing phantoms and ultrasound scanners will be available for attendees to learn diagnostic ultrasound QC in a hands-on environment with live demonstrations and on-site instructors. The targeted attendees are medical physicists in diagnostic imaging. Learning Objectives: Gain familiarity with common elements of a QA/QC program for diagnostic ultrasound imaging dentify QC tools available for testing diagnostic ultrasound systems and learn how to use these tools Learn ACR ultrasound accreditation requirements Jennifer Walter is an employee of American College of Radiology on Ultrasound Accreditation.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4957768},
journal = {Medical Physics},
number = 6,
volume = 43,
place = {United States},
year = 2016,
month = 6
}
  • A goal of an imaging accreditation program is to ensure adequate image quality, verify appropriate staff qualifications, and to assure patient and personnel safety. Currently, more than 35,000 facilities in 10 modalities have been accredited by the American College of Radiology (ACR), making the ACR program one of the most prolific accreditation options in the U.S. In addition, the ACR is one of the accepted accreditations required by some state laws, CMS/MIPPA insurance and others. Familiarity with the ACR accreditation process is therefore essential to clinical diagnostic medical physicists. Maintaining sufficient knowledge of the ACR program must include keeping up-to-datemore » as the various modality requirements are refined to better serve the goals of the program and to accommodate newer technologies and practices. This session consists of presentations from authorities in four ACR accreditation modality programs, including magnetic resonance imaging, mammography, ultrasound, and computed tomography. Each speaker will discuss the general components of the modality program and address any recent changes to the requirements. Learning Objectives: To understand the requirements of the ACR MR accreditation program. The discussion will include accreditation of whole-body general purpose magnets, dedicated extremity systems well as breast MRI accreditation. Anticipated updates to the ACR MRI Quality Control Manual will also be reviewed. To understand the current ACR MAP Accreditation requirement and present the concepts and structure of the forthcoming ACR Digital Mammography QC Manual and Program. To understand the new requirements of the ACR ultrasound accreditation program, and roles the physicist can play in annual equipment surveys and setting up and supervising the routine QC program. To understand the requirements of the ACR CT accreditation program, including updates to the QC manual as well as updates through the FAQ process.« less
  • It is illogical to continue using some current design requirements in their present form. Specifying design criteria to guard against various occurrences while neglecting an examination of their likelihood is unjustifiable. Probabilistic analyses, followed if necessary by cost-benefit analyses, can focus on and bring into perspective various adverse implications resulting from some deterministic criteria and requirements. Proper use and probabilistic analysis techniques will give system designers latitude in design decisions, thereby eliminating the built-in biases of design philosophy based on deterministic criteria. This resultant philosophical diversity applied to attaining design goals should be beneficial in reducing risks from nuclear stations.
  • Southern California Edison began developing a TLD program for its San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station in 1982. By the fall of 1984, it had replaced the previous film badge service with a new in-house TGLD program, and the program had received NVLAP accreditation. This article describes the general approach taken to implement the new TLD program and the experiences gained enduring the accreditation process. The TLD system is described and four phases of program development are discussed: NVLAP pilot testing, TLD system field testing, formal NVLAP performance testing, and the on-site technical audit.
  • In this paper, an assessor for the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program describes the on-site assessment portion of the accreditation process for personnel dosimetry processors. The role of assessments, assessment criteria and checklists, pre-visit preparation, assessor activities on-site, and recurring problems are covered in this first-hand account of the accreditation program in action.
  • A three-step accreditation program for personnel training has upgraded nuclear power plant instruction and standards. The accreditation process includes self-evaluation, Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) evaluation, and an Accrediting Board decision. During the self-evaluation phase, utilities compare their training with standardized criteria to identify any weaknesses and implement solutions. INPO participation and assistance at this point introduces objective appraisal at an early stage and ensures that adequate documentation will be available for the INPO evaluation. (DCK)