Characteristics of Radiologists Serving as Medical Malpractice Expert Witnesses for Defense Versus Plaintiff

PurposePrevious studies have reported higher qualification characteristics for anesthesiologists, neurosurgeons, orthopedic surgeons, and otolaryngologists serving as defense (versus plaintiff) medical malpractice expert witnesses. We assessed such characteristics for radiologist expert witnesses.MethodsUsing the Westlaw legal research database, we identified radiologists serving as experts in all indexed medical malpractice cases between 2010 and 2019. Online databases were used to identify years of practice experience and scholarly bibliometrics. Using Medicare claims, individual radiologist practice types and mixes were ascertained. Radiologists testifying at least once each for defense and plaintiff were excluded from our defense-only versus plaintiff-only comparative analysis.ResultsInitial Boolean searches yielded 1,042 potential cases; subsequent manual review identified 179 radiologists testifying in 231 lawsuits: 143 testified in one case (58 defense, 85 plaintiff) and 36 testified in multiple cases (10 defense-only, 14 plaintiff-only, 12 both). The 68 defense-only experts had fewer years of practice experience than the 99 plaintiff-only experts (28.3 versus 31.8 years, P = .02), but the two groups were otherwise similar in both practice type (44.6% versus 54.9% academic, P = .62) and mix (63.8% versus 65.8% practiced as subspecialists, P = .37) and as well as numbers of publications (60.5 versus 62.8, P = .86), citations (1,994.1 versus 2,309.2, P = .56), and h-indices (17.2 versus 16.8, P = .89).ConclusionsIn contrast to other specialists, radiologists serving as medical malpractice expert witnesses for defense and plaintiff display similar qualifications across various characteristics. Published practice parameter guidelines and experts’ ability to blindly review archived original images might together explain this interspecialty discordance.     

COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates: Impact on Radiology Department Operations and Mitigation Strategies

ObjectiveCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine mandates are being implemented in health systems across the United States, and the impact on the radiology department workforce and operations becuase of vaccine hesitancy among health care workers is currently unknown. This article discusses the potential impact of the COVID-19 vaccine mandate on a large multicenter radiology department as well as strategies to mitigate those effects.MethodsWeekly vaccine compliance data were obtained for employees across the entire health system from August 17, 2021, through September 13, 2021, and radiology department–specific data were extracted. Vaccine compliance data was mapped to specific radiology job titles and the five different hospital locations.ResultsA total of 6% of radiology department employees were not fully vaccine compliant by the initial deadline of September 10, 2021. MR technologists and radiology technology assistants had the highest initial rates of noncompliance of 37% and 38%, respectively. Vaccine noncompliance rates by the mandate deadline ranged from 0.5% to 7.0% at the five hospital sites. Only one hospital required a decrease in imaging hours of operation because of the vaccine mandate.ConclusionDespite initial concerns about the impact of vaccine mandate noncompliance on departmental operations, there was ultimately little effect because of improved vaccine compliance after the mandate. Understanding individual employee and locoregional differences in vaccine compliance can help leaders proactively develop mitigation strategies to manage this new challenge during the COVID-19 pandemic.     

Prospective Study of Radial Artery Occlusion Following Transradial Arterial Access during IR Procedures

PurposeTo prospectively determine the rate of radial artery occlusion (RAO) in patients undergoing transradial access for intra-arterial interventions.Materials and MethodsSeventy-seven patients undergoing transradial access from August 2019 to March 2021 for 120 intra-arterial procedures (yttrium-90 mapping [n = 39] and radioembolization [n = 38], uterine artery embolization [n = 19], transarterial chemoembolization [n = 10], active bleed embolization [n = 8], angiomyolipoma embolization [n = 4], and other [n = 2]) were enrolled. The average patient age was 59 years ± 13.1 (range, 30–90 years), and 43 (55.8%) of the 77 patients were men. The patients underwent radial artery (RA) palpation, ultrasound evaluation, the Barbeau test, and the reverse Barbeau test prior to and following the intervention. Verapamil, nitroglycerin, and heparin were administered in a total of 114 (95%) of the 120 procedures prior to starting the procedure. The incidence of RAO and radial artery spasm (RAS) was calculated, and univariate logistic regression was performed to analyze the predictors of RAS.ResultsThe preprocedural RA diameter (3.0 mm ± 0.67) was not significantly different from the postprocedural RA diameter (3.0 mm ± 0.65, P = .904). The RAO rate was determined to be 0.8% (1/120), and this artery recanalized within 1 week. Due to the small number of occlusions, statistical analysis of predictors of RAO was not performed. The rate of RAS was 22.7% (27/119). None of the variables tested—including age, sex, RA diameter, initial versus repeat access, operator experience, and artery puncture technique—showed significant prediction for RAS. Patients were seen for follow-up after 111 (92.5%) of the 120 procedures.ConclusionsTransradial access resulted in a <1% rate of RAO.     

MR-safety in clinical practice at 7T: Evaluation of a multistep screening process in 1819 subjects

IntroductionMR facilities must implement and maintain adequate screening and safety procedures to ensure safety during MR examinations. The aim of this study was to evaluate a multi-step MR safety screening process used at a 7T facility regarding incidence of different types of safety risks detected during the safety procedure.MethodsSubjects scheduled for an MR examination and having entered the 7T facility during 2016–2019 underwent a pre-defined multi-step MR safety screening process. Screening documentation of 1819 included subjects was reviewed, and risks identified during the different screening steps were compiled. These data were also related to documented decisions made by a 7T MR safety committee and reported MR safety incidents.ResultsPassive or active implants (n = 315) were identified in a screening form and/or an additional documented interview in 305 subjects. Additional information not previously self-reported by the subject, regarding implants necessitating safety decisions performed by the staff was revealed in the documented interview in 102 subjects (106 items). In total, the 7T MR safety committee documented a decision in 36 (2%) of the included subjects. All of these subjects were finally cleared for scanning.ConclusionA multi-step screening process allows a thorough MR screening of subjects, avoiding safety incidents. Different steps in the process allow awareness to rise and items to be detected that were missed in earlier steps.Implications for practiceSafety questions posed at a single timepoint during an MR screening process might not reveal all safety risks. Repetition and rephrasing of screening questions leads to increased detection of safety risks. This could be effectively mitigated by a multi-step screening process. A multi-disciplinary safety committee is efficient at short notice responding to unexpected safety issues.     

Assessment of a Large-Scale Peer Learning Program’s Value by Manual Review of Case Submissions

ObjectivePrior studies used submission numbers or report addendum rates to measure peer learning programs’ (PLP) impact. We assessed the educational value of a PLP by manually reviewing cases submitted to identify factors correlating with meaningful learning opportunities (MLOs).MethodsThis institutional review board–exempted, retrospective study was performed in a large academic radiology department generating >800,000 reports annually. A PLP facilitating radiologist-to-radiologist feedback was implemented May 1, 2017, with subsequent pay-for-performance initiatives encouraging increasing submissions, >18,000 by 2019. Two radiologists blinded to submitter and receiver identity categorized 336 randomly selected submissions as a MLO, not meaningful, or equivocal, resolving disagreements in consensus review. Primary outcome was proportion of MLOs. Secondary outcomes included percent engagement by subspecialty clinical division and comparing MLO and report addendum rates via Fisher’s exact tests. We assessed association between peer learning category, pay-for-performance interventions, and subspecialty division with MLOs using logistic regression.ResultsOf 336 PLP submissions, 65.2% (219 of 336) were categorized as meaningful, 27.4% (92 of 336) not meaningful, and 7.4% (25 of 336) equivocal, with substantial reviewer agreement (86.0% [289 of 336], κ = 0.71, 95% confidence interval 0.64-0.78). MLO rate (65.2% [219 of 336]) was five times higher than addendum rate (12.9% [43 of 333]) for the cohort. MLO proportion (adjusted odds ratios 0.05-1.09) and percent engagement (0.5%-3.6%) varied between subspecialty divisions, some submitting significantly fewer MLOs (P < .01). MLO proportion did not vary between peer learning categories.ConclusionEducational value of a large-scale PLP, estimated through manual review of case submissions, is likely a more accurate measure of program impact. Incentives to enhance PLP use did not diminish the program’s educational value.     

Professional Steps: The Certification Path

Obtaining certification is a critical step on the road to professionalism. There are many questions to consider in this decision. Included among these are cost, preparation, and return on the investment. Important answers to these questions are discussed.