On Demand: Implementing Shared Cardiac PET Services: Operational and Technical Considerations for CV Leaders and Clinicians Responsible for Making-Presentation Slides

Presentation Slides

Pdf Summary

This document summarizes operational and technical considerations for implementing shared cardiac PET services across cardiology and radiology teams. It emphasizes that the main challenges are usually operational rather than purely technical. Shared cardiac PET involves one scanner serving multiple patient populations with different workflows, urgency levels, and expectations, so success depends on early clarity around ownership, governance, scheduling, and communication.<br /><br />A simple operational framework highlights four key pillars: people, workflow, governance, and infrastructure. The presentation stresses that decision-makers from clinical leadership, administration, nuclear medicine technologists, scheduling, and IT/PACS should all be represented. Clear ownership of protocols, conflict resolution, and change approval should be defined early to avoid delays and confusion.<br /><br />Workflow considerations include block scheduling, prioritization between cardiac and oncology cases, stress-testing logistics, same-day add-ons, and radiopharmaceutical coordination. Consistent governance with escalation pathways and regular operational touchpoints is essential to prevent gridlock. Infrastructure must support the workflow through appropriate EHR ordering, PACS access, and reporting systems.<br /><br />Technically, shared cardiac PET requires careful attention to equipment readiness, protocol standardization, image quality and QA, and interpretation/reporting consistency. Small differences in acquisition, reconstruction, patient preparation, stress timing, and radiopharmaceutical handling can affect quantitation and trust in results. The document warns that scaling increases risks such as training drift, protocol creep, reader variability, and multi-site inconsistency.<br /><br />Common pitfalls include inconsistent protocols, poor QA review, underestimated scheduling impact, and delayed governance decisions. Overall, the key message is that when shared cardiac PET is well designed, operations become predictable, handoffs improve, and clinical teams can trust the system.

Keywords

shared cardiac PET

operational framework

workflow management

governance

scheduling

protocol standardization

image quality assurance

radiology cardiology collaboration

PACS EHR integration

stress testing logistics