Improving compliance with Intersocietal Accreditation Commission (IAC) reporting standards: A serial comparison of 523 labs over seven years

background:the aim of this study was to evaluate reporting compliance of laboratories applying for serial accreditation by the intersocietal accreditation commission (iac) and compare compliance based on laboratory characteristics. methods:all laboratories applying for iac accreditation for the first time in 2008 and then twice more (2011-2014) were evaluated for compliance with 18 reporting elements. the elements were ranked into three severity groups (high/moderate/low). results:reports from 523 laboratories were evaluated. the percentage of laboratories with reporting issues by cycle was 66.2% for cycle 1, 36.7% for cycle 2, and 43.8% for cycle 3 (p < .001). for most of the 18 elements, there was a significant decrease in the percentage of labs with issues. less moderate and high severity errors were seen over time. also, the mean non-compliant elements per laboratory decreased from 5.78 ± 2.72 at cycle 1, down to 1.25 ± 1.77 at cycle 3. conclusion:sin facilities applying for 3 consecutive iac accreditation cycles, reporting compliance with iac standards improved between cycles 1-2 and 1-3. no significant improvement occurred between cycles 2-3. although the quality of reports improved overall, problems remain in quantifying myocardial perfusion defects, documenting report approval date, and integrating stress and imaging reports.