Thread by @tobiasgilk

I am in awe of what @RadiologyACR has done in the realm of #MRIsafety best practices. Their 2020 Manual is unparalleled in both breadth and depth (acr.org/Clinical-Resou…).

That said, the ACR's MRI accreditation program requirements are largely bereft of it's own guidance.

This hasn't stopped @RadiologyACR from continuing to promote its MR accreditation programs' purported #MRIsafety assurances, including in prepared press-releases provided to accredited sites upon receipt of their MR accreditation.

Just today I was alerted to one of these (hdnews.net/2022/01/22/mri…), where the accreditation is purported to 'ensure the highest level of safety.'

Does this include minimum MRI safety training content / curriculum & frequency like @TJCommission's accreditation criteria?

No.

Does @RadiologyACR MRI accreditation require safety training for incidental staff who provide patient care within MRI (not MRI personnel) like @IACaccred does (kind of)?

No.

Does @RadiologyACR MRI accreditation require ferromagnetic detection systems like the FGI has since 2010?

Does it require MRMD, MRSO, and MRSE designated individuals as indicated in this paper (onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.10…) published in 2016?

How many of the (over 100) individual performance elements of the ACR's Manual on MR Safety (acr.org/Clinical-Resou…) are also minimum performance requirements for their MRI accreditation programs?

ACR MRI accreditation *is* a tremendously powerful tool of image quality, but it is a profound exaggeration to include statements about how their MRI accreditation 'ensures MRI safety' in the same context as it 'assures image quality.'

Again, the existing @RadiologyACR *guidance* on MRI safety is unparalleled in the world today, and I am both proud and humbled to have played a role in those efforts. But the MR accreditation requirements today are miles from 'ensuring safety', or even their own safety manual.

Please unroll, @threadreaderapp. TYVM.