I've worked in an IAC accredited lab for a very long time (mid 90's). Last night, I printed off the ACR information and took it home to read to compare just to see for myself what the differences are. Like Ann Marie, I am also on the IAC board.
With ACR accreditation, there are no pathways for multiple sites and the cost is $1450 for all subsets of vascular accreditation. If you have to resubmit information at their request, you are charged $850.00.
IAC accreditation is $1500 for one subset and $300 per additional subset. The cost is about the same.
ACR accreditation only wants normal exams submitted for review. In contrast, IAC wants abnormal exams of varying disease categories. I feel that we are in the business to find abnormal findings. In fact, in this lab, we would have a hard time coming up with normal exams to send in!!
ACR hinges most of their QA processes on the imaging machine/phantom images rather than on grading the actual quality of the images, the findings of the study and correct correlations with other imaging modalities.
As Ann Marie stated, each time I accredit our lab, it is a learning process and I find ways to improve the workflow or processes in our lab and to address deficiencies if noted.
I feel that the impetus of the IAC is to improve processes, improve accuracy by learning what you need to work on in your lab and to improve patient care by those means.
From: UVM Flownet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ann Marie Kupinski
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 9:42 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: ACR vs IAC Accreditation
I am a little late to this discussion. I wanted to add that I have looked at both application requirements in the past. I have chosen the IAC for vascular accreditation. Every time I did an application renewal I thought of it as a learning process for my lab and improved on any faults I discovered. I also used their CME requirements to make sure everyone involved with the lab kept current with their knowledge. I know the IAC is pretty particular about the cases we submit. BUT - we only need to send them 3 cases so they should be pretty close to perfect. By setting their standards high, the IAC is serious about quality patient care and good patient outcomes.
In full disclosure, I am on the IAC Vascular board. But that is because I do believe in their mission.
From: UVM Flownet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Nancy Williams
Sent: Friday, February 7, 2014 1:46 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: ACR vs IAC Accreditation
For folks that have chosen ACR over the IAC accreditation why did you chose ACR? I have been asked to compare the two and I can see very little difference between the two. I am a little confused over the cost of the ACR accreditation, but the standards and protocols seem to align pretty evenly.
Am I mistaken on this?
To unsubscribe or search other topics on UVM Flownet link to: