Got the Munchies for an Egg Sandwich? The Effects of Cannabis on Bowel Motility and Beyond.

The use of medicinal cannabis has a long history dating back thousands of years. Recent discoveries have shed light on its mechanism of action with the identification of cannabinoid receptors and endocannabinoids, which make up the body's endocannabinoid system. Cannabinoid receptors, particularly the cannabinoid 1 and 2 receptors, play a crucial role in modulating the gut-brain axis and serve as potential therapeutic targets for gastrointestinal motility and inflammatory disorders. With increasing legalization of cannabis and a rising number of users, understanding the effects of cannabis on gut motility is essential for nuclear medicine providers. Although tetrahydrocannabinol, the principal psychoactive constituent of cannabis, may decrease gut motility in experimental settings, it appears to paradoxically improve symptoms in gastroparesis. Treatment effects are difficult to measure given the large number of variables that could significantly alter outcomes, such as cannabinoid type, potency, and route of intake. Another consideration is the highly personalized gut microbiome, which directly interacts with the endocannabinoid system. Further research is required to delineate these multifaceted, complex cannabinoid interactions. The goal of this article is to explore the knowns and unknowns of the impact of cannabis on the alimentary system.

U.S. Diagnostic Reference Levels and Achievable Administered Activities for Adult Renal Scintigraphy: An Analysis of the Intersocietal Accreditation Committee Nuclear Laboratories.

The goal of this work was to determine U.S. diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) and achievable administered activities (AAAs) for adult renal scintigraphy. Methods: Under an Institutional Review Board-approved protocol, data were collected from the Intersocietal Accreditation Commission during one 3-y accreditation cycle encompassing 110 facilities. Elements included radiopharmaceutical, administered activity, practice type, and examination volume. DRLs and AAAs were calculated and compared with non-U.S. values and societal recommendations as available. Results: Ninety-three facilities provided data on 99mTc-mercaptoacetyltriglycine (99mTc-MAG3), and 15 provided data on 99mTc-diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid (99mTc-DTPA) for adult renal scintigraphy exams. Analysis demonstrated a DRL of 392.2 MBq (10.6 mCi) for 99mTc-MAG3 and 531.7 MBq (14.4 mCi) for 99mTc-DTPA, with an AAA of 370 MBq (10 mCi) for 99mTc-MAG3 and 445.9 MBq (12.1 mCi) for 99mTc-DTPA. Conclusion: The resultant calculated novel U.S. DRLs and AAAs may serve as benchmarks that nuclear medicine facilities may use to refine renal scintigraphy protocols, reduce patient doses, and potentially guide future societal guideline recommendations.

Nationwide Laboratory Adherence to Myocardial Perfusion Imaging Radiation Dose Reduction Practices: A Report From the Intersocietal Accreditation Commission Data Repository.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to examine current laboratory practices for radiation effective doses for myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) and laboratory adherence to guideline-directed radiation reduction practices. BACKGROUND: A recent focus on radiation dose reduction for cardiovascular imaging has led to several published guidelines and consensus statements detailing performance metrics for laboratory practices. We sought to examine laboratory adherence to optimized radiation dose protocol recommendations among 5,216 submitted cases from 1,074 MPI laboratories evaluated for Intersocietal Accreditation Commission accreditation. METHODS: Eligible imaging centers included MPI laboratories enrolled in the Intersocietal Accreditation Commission data repository of accreditation applications from 2012 to 2013. Accreditation requires submission of 3 to 5 cases for evaluation of a range of representative cases. Based on standard dosimetry for rest and stress MPI, an effective dose (in millisieverts) was calculated. Model simulations were performed to estimate guideline-directed effective doses. RESULTS: The average effective dose was 14.9 ± 5.8 mSv (range 1.4 to 42.4 mSv). A 1-day technetium Tc 99m protocol was used in 82.9% of cases, whereas a 2-day technetium Tc 99m and dual isotope protocol was used in 7.5% of submitted cases. Only 1.5% of participating imaging centers met current guidelines for an average laboratory radiation exposure ≤9 mSv, whereas 10.1% of patient effective doses were >20.0 mSv. A model simulation replacing the radiation exposure of dual isotope MPI with that of a 1-day technetium Tc 99m protocol reduced the proportion of patients receiving an effective dose >20 mSv to only 2.7% of cases (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Mandatory laboratory accreditation for MPI allows for examination of current radiation dosimetry practices. Current guidelines for reduced patient-specific radiation exposure are rarely implemented, with few laboratories meeting recommendations of ≤9 mSv for 50% of patients. Increased educational efforts and the development of performance measures for laboratory accreditation may be required to meet current radiation dose-reduction standards.

How Do Noninvasive Imaging Facilities Perceive the Accreditation Process? Results of an Intersocietal Accreditation Commission Survey.

The Intersocietal Accreditation Commission (IAC) accredits vascular, echocardiography, nuclear medicine, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging laboratories. How facilities involved in the accreditation process view accreditation is unknown. The objective of this study was to examine the perception of laboratory accreditation from those who had undergone the process. An electronic survey request was sent to all facilities that had received IAC accreditation at least once. Demographic information, as well as opinions on the perceived value of accreditation as it relates to 15 quality metrics was acquired. Responses were obtained from 2782 facilities. Of the 15 quality metrics examined, the process was perceived as leading to improvements by a majority of respondents for 10 (67%) metrics including: report standardization, adherence to guidelines, test standardization, report completeness, identification of deficiencies, improved staff knowledge, report timeliness, distinguished facility, correction of deficiencies, and image quality. Overall, the perceived improvement was greater for hospital-based facilities (global 66% vs 59%; P < 0.001). Survey data demonstrate that the accreditation process has a positive perceived impact on the majority of examined metrics. These findings suggest that those undergoing the process find value in accreditation.

Predictors of Delayed Accreditation of Echocardiography Laboratories: An Analysis of the Intersocietal Accreditation Commission Database.

BACKGROUND: Intersocietal Accreditation Commission Echocardiography accreditation involves a broad-based evaluation of a given echocardiography facility's daily operation. An in-depth analysis of the most frequent noncompliant accreditation items provides learning opportunities for improvement of echocardiographic practice and facilities. METHODS: Data from 3,260 facilities applying for accreditation from 2011 to 2013 were analyzed to assess five key elements, each including multiple variables. The key elements included staff qualifications, imaging protocols, image quality, reporting, and documentation of quality improvement activities. Site characteristics for each facility were also analyzed. RESULTS: Sixty-two percent of facilities (n = 2,020) demonstrated deficiencies resulting in delayed accreditation. Deficiencies were less frequently observed at hospital-based facilities, facilities applying for reaccreditation, and facilities with credentialed sonographers. The most frequent deficiencies were related to reports (48%), followed by staff qualifications (46%), quality improvement (45%), image quality (44%), and protocols (43%). Both reports and image quality had the highest average numbers of deficiencies per facility, with 2.0 ± 1.0 and 1.83 ± 0.82, respectively. The most common deficient variables were lack of documented continuing medical education (25%), incomplete protocols (36%), incomplete interrogation of aortic stenosis from multiple views (34%), incomplete reports (36%), and insufficient annual summary of quality improvement activities (45%). CONCLUSIONS: Accreditation is delayed for a majority of facilities seeking Intersocietal Accreditation Commission Echocardiography accreditation because of major deficiencies or noncompliance. By focusing on staff continuing medical education, adoption and implementation of standard imaging protocols, ensuring acceptable image quality, using standards in reporting, and implementing quality improvement programs, echocardiography facility performance and quality as compared with the Intersocietal Accreditation Commission Echocardiography standards may be improved.

Facility perception of nuclear cardiology accreditation: Results of an Intersocietal Accreditation Commission (IAC) survey.

BACKGROUND: The Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act requires accreditation for all non-hospital suppliers of nuclear cardiology, nuclear medicine, and positron emission tomography (PET) studies as a condition of reimbursement. The perceptions of these facilities regarding the value and impact of the accreditation process are unknown. We conducted an electronic survey to assess the value of nuclear cardiology accreditation. METHODS: A request to participate in an electronic survey was sent to the medical and technical directors (n = 5,721) of all facilities who had received Intersocietal Accreditation Commission (IAC) Nuclear/PET accreditation. Demographic information, as well as, opinions on the value of accreditation as it relates to 16 quality metrics was obtained. RESULTS: There were 664 (11.6%) respondents familiar with the accreditation process of which 26% were hospital-based and 74% were nonhospital-based. Of the quality metrics examined, the process was perceived as leading to improvements by a majority of all respondents for 10 (59%) metrics including report standardization, report completeness, guideline adherence, deficiency identification, report timeliness, staff knowledge, facility distinction, deficiency correction, acquisition standardization, and image quality. Overall, the global perceived improvement was greater for hospital-based facilities (63% vs 57%; P < .001). Ninety-five percent of respondents felt that accreditation was important. Hospital-based facilities were more likely to feel that accreditation demonstrates a commitment to quality (43% vs 33%, P = .029), while nonhospital-based facilities were more likely to feel accreditation is important for reimbursement (50% vs 29%, P≤ .001). CONCLUSION: Although the accreditation process is demanding, the results of the IAC survey indicate that the accreditation process has a positive perceived impact for the majority of examined quality metrics, suggesting the facilities find the process to be valuable.