• Home
  • Practice Focus
    • Facial Plastic/Reconstructive
    • Head and Neck
    • Laryngology
    • Otology/Neurotology
    • Pediatric
    • Rhinology
    • Sleep Medicine
    • How I Do It
    • TRIO Best Practices
  • Business of Medicine
    • Health Policy
    • Legal Matters
    • Practice Management
    • Technology
    • AI
    • History of Otolaryngology
  • Literature Reviews
    • Facial Plastic/Reconstructive
    • Head and Neck
    • Laryngology
    • Otology/Neurotology
    • Pediatric
    • Rhinology
    • Sleep Medicine
  • Career
    • Medical Education
    • Professional Development
    • Resident Focus
  • ENT Perspectives
    • ENT Expressions
    • Everyday Ethics
    • From TRIO
    • The Great Debate
    • Letter From the Editor
    • Rx: Wellness
    • The Voice
    • Viewpoint
    • SUO Corner
  • TRIO Resources
    • Triological Society
    • The Laryngoscope
    • Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology
    • TRIO Combined Sections Meetings
    • COSM
    • Related Otolaryngology Events
  • Search

To Accredit or Not to Accredit?: Accreditation Soon May Be Required for In-Office CT Scanners: Part 2 of 3

by Gretchen Henkel • February 1, 2008

  • Tweet
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
Print-Friendly Version

Mary T. Lally, RT(R), Technical Manager for ICACTL, concurred. In the otolaryngology community, we find that due to the use of the mini-CT scanners, the ENT physicians typically only scan sinus and temporal bones, she said. The ICACTL accreditation program offers a pathway for the ENT physician to both perform and interpret their scans, providing they meet the criteria outlined in the standards. All CT scanners, whether they are full-body or volume/cone beam units, must meet the same quality assurance [QA] criteria. Also, all laboratories that apply for ICACTL accreditation must have a comprehensive QA program that includes both technical and interpretive quality assessment.

You Might Also Like

  • Imaging at a Crossroads: CT scan providers urged to initiate accreditation
  • Demystifying the ACGME: Your guide to understanding the residency accreditation body
  • Point-of-Care CT Scanning in Otolaryngology: Boon for Patients and Physicians: Part 1 of 2
  • Office-Based FNA Thyroid Nodule Biopsies a Viable Option
Explore This Issue
February 2008

Reimbursement Reasons Only?

Whatever the path to in-office CT scanning-full body or mini-CT-accreditation is now becoming de rigueur for UnitedHealthcare providers and other practices.

Ms. Wilcox noted, I think that accreditation, whether it’s through the ACR or through the IAC, is an important assessment. They are both peer-review programs, but the whole self-assessment process that goes on in preparing for accreditation can be very enlightening about areas where quality is less than optimal. [Accreditation] is all about quality patient care. It’s a way for ENTs to demonstrate that they’re committed to providing good quality imaging, not just the direct patient care that they are already obviously dedicated to delivering.

Reference

  1. 1. Campbell, EG, Regan, S, Gruen, RL, et al. Professionalism in medicine: results of a national survey of physicians. Ann Int Med 2007;147(11):795-802.
    [Context Link]

©2008 The Triological Society

Pages: 1 2 3 | Single Page

Filed Under: Departments, Health Policy, Practice Management, Tech Talk Tagged With: accreditation, CT, healthcare reform, Imaging, policy, Quality, reimbursement, technologyIssue: February 2008

You Might Also Like:

  • Imaging at a Crossroads: CT scan providers urged to initiate accreditation
  • Demystifying the ACGME: Your guide to understanding the residency accreditation body
  • Point-of-Care CT Scanning in Otolaryngology: Boon for Patients and Physicians: Part 1 of 2
  • Office-Based FNA Thyroid Nodule Biopsies a Viable Option

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Triological SocietyENTtoday is a publication of The Triological Society.

Polls

Where should ENT publications draw the line on authors' use of generative AI?

View Results

Loading ...
  • Polls Archive

Top Articles for Residents

  • Rhinology’s Persistent Gender Gap
  • The Example We Set: Thoughts on the End of Residency Training
  • Is the SLOR in Otolaryngology Residency Applications Contributing to Rural Disparities?
  • Applications Open for Resident Members of the ENTtoday Editorial Board: Deadline Extended
  • A Resident’s View of AI in Otolaryngology
  • Popular this Week
  • Most Popular
  • Most Recent
    • ENTs Urged to Look Beyond Refractory Sinus Disease for Underlying Immune Deficiency
    • Empty Nose Syndrome: Physiological, Psychological, or Perhaps a Little of Both?
    • The Dramatic Rise in Tongue Tie and Lip Tie Treatment
    • History of the Cochlear Implant
    • New Developments in the Management of Eustachian Tube Dysfunction
    • The Dramatic Rise in Tongue Tie and Lip Tie Treatment
    • Rating Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Severity: How Do Two Common Instruments Compare?
    • Is Middle Ear Pressure Affected by Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Use?
    • Otolaryngologists Are Still Debating the Effectiveness of Tongue Tie Treatment
    • Complications for When Physicians Change a Maiden Name
    • ENTs Urged to Look Beyond Refractory Sinus Disease for Underlying Immune Deficiency
    • When a “Blocked Ear” Isn’t Obstructive ETD
    • What Does It Mean to Be Written by a Human?
    • Reevaluating the CMS 90-Day CPAP Adherence Requirement: Persistent Use Among Early Nonadherent Patients
    • Vocal Outcomes After COVR in Porcine Bilateral Vocal Fold Resection

Follow Us

  • Contact Us
  • About Us
  • Advertise
  • The Triological Society
  • The Laryngoscope
  • Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use
  • Cookies

Wiley

Copyright © 2026 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved, including rights for text and data mining and training of artificial technologies or similar technologies. ISSN 1559-4939