A Guided Survey Approach for Joint Commission Preparedness in Radiology

  • Nahill H. MatariEmail author
  • Giancarlo Di Marco Serra
  • Abdel-Kareem Beidas
  • Michael A. Bruno
  • Hani Abujudeh
Quality and Safety (H Abujudeh, Section Editor)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Quality and Safety


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.


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.


Radiology joint commission accreditation Radiology inspection survey Joint commission inspection Radiology standard of care 


Compliance with Ethical Guidelines

Conflict of interest

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


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

  1. 1.
    • 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. 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. Scholar
  3. 3.
    Waite S, Scott JM, Legasto A, Kolla S, Gale B, Krupinski EA. Systemic error in radiology. Am J Roentgenol. 2017;209:629–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    About the ACR AC. In: About the ACR AC | American College of Radiology. Accessed 3 Jan 2019.
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    ACR Contrast Manual. In: Contrast Manual | American College of Radiology. Accessed 12 Jan 2019.
  14. 14.
    Bush WH. Treatment of acute contrast reactions. Radiology Life Support 2009:31–51.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Beckett KR, Moriarity AK, Langer JM. Safe use of contrast media: what the radiologist needs to know. RadioGraphics. 2015;35:1738–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Delaney A, Carter A, Fisher M. The prevention of anaphylactoid reactions to iodinated radiological contrast media: a systematic review. BMC Med Imaging. 2006. Scholar
  18. 18.
    Practice Parameters and Technical Standards. In: American College of Radiology. Accessed 16 Jan 2019.
  19. 19.
    Ploussi A, Efstathopoulos EP. Importance of establishing radiation protection culture in radiology department. World J Radiol. 2016;8:142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Stecker MS, Balter S, Towbin RB, et al. Guidelines for patient radiation dose management. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2009. Scholar
  22. 22.
    Steele JR, Jones AK, Ninan EP. Quality initiatives: establishing an interventional radiology patient radiation safety program. RadioGraphics. 2012;32:277–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23. Accessed 19 Jan 2019.
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ahmed A, Niazi IK, Uddin I, Iqbal A, Sabir M, Awan MS. Time out in interventional radiology. Clin Radiol. 2017. Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Aakre KT, Johnson CD. Plain-radiographic image labeling: a process to improve clinical outcomes. J Am Coll Radiol. 2006;3:949–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Landau E, Hirschorn D, Koutras I, Malek A, Demissie S. Preventing errors in laterality. J Digit Imaging. 2014;28:240–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hussain S. Communicating critical results in radiology. J Am Coll Radiol. 2010;7:148–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Practice Parameters for Documentation and Reporting | American College of Radiology. In: American College of Radiology | American College of Radiology. Accessed 3 Feb 2019.
  32. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nahill H. Matari
    • 1
    Email author
  • Giancarlo Di Marco Serra
    • 1
  • Abdel-Kareem Beidas
    • 1
  • Michael A. Bruno
    • 2
  • Hani Abujudeh
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyRutgers New Jersey Medical SchoolNewarkUSA
  2. 2.Division of Emergency Radiology, Department of RadiologyPenn State Milton S. Hershey Medical CenterHersheyUSA
  3. 3.Department of RadiologyDetroit Medical Center, Envision Physician ServicesDetroitUSA

Personalised recommendations