Emergency department coverage by academic departments of radiology

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to survey academic radiology departments to determine how emergency radiology coverage is handled and whether there are any prerequisites for those individuals providing this coverage. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The authors developed a simple two-page survey and sent it to a total of 608 program directors, chiefs of diagnostic radiology, chairpersons, and chief residents at academic departments of radiology. RESULTS: Of the 608 surveys sent, 278 (46%) were returned. More than half of the departments have an emergency radiology section that provides "wet read" coverage during the day, and most academic departments cover the emergency department during the night and on weekends. Nighttime and weekend coverage is handled mostly by residents. Most departments give time off for lunch, with few other prerequisites for faculty who provide emergency coverage. Sixty percent of the departments have teleradiology capability, and many use it for emergency department coverage. CONCLUSION: These results can serve as the basis for discussion and comparison with other institutions regarding a variety of aspects of emergency department coverage.     

Discordance rates between preliminary and final radiology reports on cross-sectional imaging studies at a level 1 trauma center

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The goal was to determine discordance rates between preliminary radiology reports provided by on-call radiology house staff and final reports from attending radiologists on cross-sectional imaging studies requested by emergency department staff after hours. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A triplicate carbon copy reporting form was developed to provide permanent records of preliminary radiology reports and to facilitate communication of discrepant results to the emergency department. Data were collected over 21 weeks to determine the number of discordant readings. Patients' medical records were reviewed to show whether discrepancies were significant or insignificant and to assess their impact on subsequent management and patient outcome. RESULTS: The emergency department requested 2830 cross-sectional imaging studies after hours and 2311 (82%) had a copy of the triplicate form stored in radiology archives. Discrepancies between the preliminary and final report were recorded in 47 (2.0%), with 37 (1.6%) considered significant: 14 patients needed no change, 13 needed a minor change, and 10 needed a major change in subsequent management. Ten (0.43%) of the discordant scans were considered insignificant. A random sample of 104 (20%) of the 519 scans without a paper triplicate form was examined. Seventy-one (68%) did have a scanned copy of the triplicate form in the electronic record, with a discrepancy recorded in 3 (4.2%), which was not statistically different from the main cohort (P = .18). CONCLUSION: Our study suggests a high level of concordance between preliminary reports from on-call radiology house staff and final reports by attending subspecialty radiologists on cross-sectional imaging studies requested by the emergency department.     

Soft copy interpretation of emergency department examinations

The ability of the radiology department to fully support 24-hour emergency services is becoming increasingly critical in the modern health care environment. Physical separation of departments and the unique requirements of the emergency department, however, can limit the quality of the resulting services provided by radiology with both unreported studies and an undesirable delay in interpretation. The introduction of a picture archiving and communication system (PACS) with diagnostic quality workstations has allowed the initiation of full-time soft copy image interpretation for services rendered to the emergency department. Soft copy interpretation with PACS archiving has reduced the number of unreported examinations, shortened the time to interpretation, and markedly improved the accountability for examinations performed for the emergency department.The opinions or assertions contained in this article are the private views of the authors and are not to be construed as official or as reflecting the views of the Army Medical Department, the Department of the Army, or the Department of Defense.Presented at the 6th Annual Meeting of the American Society of Emergency Radiology, Scottsdale, AZ, March 25–29, 1995.     

Part I: preparing first-year radiology residents and assessing their readiness for on-call responsibilities

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study is to evaluate the effectiveness of an Emergency Radiology (ER) Core Curriculum training module and a Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM)-based interactive examination system to prepare first-year (postgraduate year 2 [PGY-2]) radiology residents and assess their readiness for taking overnight radiology call. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approval was obtained, and the study was compliant with Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) regulations. A dedicated month-long ER curriculum was designed to prepare new radiology residents for overnight radiology call that includes interpretation of off-hour urgent and emergent studies without immediate direct attending supervision. Lectures of the curriculum, provided by department staff, were based on the American Society of Emergency Radiology core curriculum. The lecture series was implemented after PGY-2 residents had completed formal introductory resident rotations during their first 6 months of training. A DICOM-based interactive computer-based testing module was developed and administered at the end of the lecture series. The module consisted of 19 actual emergency department cases with entire series of images, simulating an on-call setting. Tests were scored by two staff members blinded to resident identifying information. Upper-level residents also were tested, and comparison was made between first-year and upper-level resident test scores to determine the effectiveness of the test in determining first-year resident preparedness for call. Statistical analysis of results was performed by using t-test (P < .05). RESULTS: All residents in the residency program present during the month (nine PGY-2, six PGY-3, seven PGY-4, seven PGY-5 residents) attended the lecture series and finished the testing module at the end of the lecture series. Of 19 actual emergency cases on the testing module, five cases were neuroradiology, three cases were thoracic imaging, eight cases were body imaging, and three cases were musculoskeletal. PGY-2 residents scored an average of 73.0% (range, 63.2%-81.6%) of total points possible. PGY-3 residents scored an average of 76.8% (range, 68.4%-86.8%); PGY-4 residents scored an average of 77.4% (range, 65.8%-100%), and PGY-5 residents scored an average of 81.2% (range, 68.4%-94.7%). There was no statistically significant difference in scores according to level of training. CONCLUSION: First-year radiology residents who underwent 6 months of formal radiology training followed by an intensive ER lecture series before taking overnight call had scores similar to upper-level colleagues on an interactive computer-based ER simulation module.     

Interpretation of Emergency Department radiographs: a comparison of emergency medicine physicians with radiologists, residents with faculty, and film with digital display

OBJECTIVE: We determined the relative value of teleradiology and radiology resident coverage of the emergency department by measuring and comparing the effects of physician specialty, training level, and image display method on accuracy of radiograph interpretation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A sample of four faculty emergency medicine physicians, four emergency medicine residents, four faculty radiologists, and four radiology residents participated in our study. Each physician interpreted 120 radiographs, approximately half containing a clinically important index finding. Radiographs were interpreted using the original films and high-resolution digital monitors. Accuracy of radiograph interpretation was measured as the area under the physicians' receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. RESULTS: The area under the ROC curve was 0.15 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.10-0.20) greater for radiologists than for emergency medicine physicians, 0.07 (95% CI, 0.02-0.12) greater for faculty than for residents, and 0.07 (95% CI, 0.02-0.12) greater for films than for video monitors. Using these results, we estimated that teleradiology coverage by faculty radiologists would add 0.09 (95% CI, 0.03-0.15) to the area under the ROC curve for radiograph interpretation by emergency medicine faculty alone, and radiology resident coverage would add 0.08 (95% CI, 0.02-0.14) to this area. CONCLUSION: We observed significant differences between the interpretation of radiographs on film and on digital monitors. However, we observed differences of equal or greater magnitude associated with the training level and physician specialty of each observer. In evaluating teleradiology services, observer characteristics must be considered in addition to the quality of image display.     

Physician satisfaction with high-resolution CT services provided by radiologists: results of a nationwide survey of pulmonary subspecialists

OBJECTIVE: Our objectives were to measure the level of satisfaction of pulmonary medicine specialists who refer patients to radiology facilities for high-resolution CT and to identify determinants of their reported satisfaction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We surveyed 450 pulmonologist members of the American College of Chest Physicians. The self-administered questionnaire sought information about the radiologists and imaging facilities to which these clinicians referred patients for high-resolution CT of the lungs. The participants rated their satisfaction with the radiology services, estimated the number of patients referred for high-resolution CT per month, answered questions about certain attitudes and utilization practices, and provided general demographic information. RESULTS: Completed surveys were received from 230 pulmonologists practicing in 43 states. Satisfaction with high-resolution CT services was rated as follows: very satisfied (35% of respondents), satisfied (49%), and indifferent or dissatisfied (16%). A higher rating was found in pulmonologists in academic practice, in those who believed that the radiologists desired as much clinical information as possible, and in those who believed that two or more members of the radiology group were interested in high-resolution CT. Among satisfied pulmonologists, confidence in the radiologist's high-resolution CT interpretation was very important. Physician satisfaction was not significantly associated with the size of the radiology group or the number of monthly referrals for high-resolution CT. CONCLUSION: Pulmonologists in the United States appear to be satisfied with the high-resolution CT services provided by the radiologists in their communities. Satisfaction with radiology services might be further increased if radiologists expressed greater interest in high-resolution CT and pertinent clinical information and improved their interpretive skills.     

Academic radiology and the emergency department: does it need changing?

RATIONAL AND OBJECTIVES: The increasing importance of imaging for both diagnosis and management in patient care has resulted in a demand for radiology services 7 days a week, 24 hours a day, especially in the emergency department (ED). We hypothesized the resident preliminary reports were better than generalist radiology interpretations, although inferior to subspecialty interpretations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Total radiology volume through our Level I pediatric and adult academic trauma ED was obtained from the radiology information system. We conducted a literature search for error and discordant rates between radiologists of varying experience. For a 2-week prospective period, all preliminary reports generated by the residents and final interpretations were collected. Significant changes in the report were tabulated. RESULTS: The ED requested 72,886 imaging studies in 2004 (16% of the total radiology department volume). In a 2-week period, 12 of 1929 (0.6%) preliminary reports by residents were discordant to the final subspecialty dictation. In the 15 peer-reviewed publications documenting error rates in radiology, the error rate between American Board of Radiology (ABR)-certified radiologists is greater than that between residents and subspecialists in the literature and in our study. However, the perceived error rate by clinicians outside radiology is significantly higher. CONCLUSION: Sixteen percent of the volume of imaging studies comes through the ED. The residents handle off-hours cases with a radiology-detected error rate below the error rate between ABR-certified radiologists. To decrease the perceived clinician-identified error rate, we need to change how academic radiology handles ED cases.     

The current status of faculty staffing and resident training in emergency radiology. Results of a survey

The results of a survey of United States and Canadian radiology residency programs in hospitals maintaining major emergency departments indicate that (1) radiologic faculty assignment to emergency medicine may include "all faculty," "specific faculty," "specific and other faculty," "general," and "musculoskeletal" faculty; (2) a chief of emergency radiology section is designated in less than 35% of radiology departments providing emergency room services; (3) radiology resident rotation in emergency radiology occurs in less than 2/3 of the surveyed programs; and (4) radiology resident experience in emergency radiology ranges from two to 16 weeks in 40% of these programs, the remainder being "unspecified." The effect of this circumstance upon the emergency department patient care and resident teaching in emergency radiology is discussed and remedial suggestions presented.     

Emergency radiology testing,teaching, and training

Conclusion This article summarizes the training and teaching of radiology residents before they attempt unsupervised emergency call, as reported in the radiologic literature. It is hoped that this report will prompt a serious evaluation of the responsibilities of radiology residents assigned to the emergency center and a reconsideration of the radiologic training and experience provided to radiology residents before they are required to assume these responsibilities. Clearly, education and training in radiology appropriate to the responsibilities expected of the on-call emergency radiology resident are required to assure optimum patient care.     

Clinical consequences of misinterpretations of neuroradiologic CT scans by on-call radiology residents

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Studies have looked at the accuracy of radiologic interpretations by radiology residents as compared with staff radiologists with regard to emergency room plain films, emergency room body CT scans, and trauma head CT scans; however, to our knowledge, no study has evaluated on-call resident interpretations of all types of neuroradiologic CT scans. Both as a part of our departmental quality control program and to address concerns of clinical services about misinterpretation of neuroradiologic CT scans by on-call radiology residents, we evaluated the frequency of incorrect preliminary interpretations of neuroradiologic CT scans by on-call radiology residents and the effect of such misinterpretations on clinical management and patient outcome. METHODS: As determined by the staff neuroradiologist the next day, all potentially clinically significant changes to preliminary reports of emergency neuroradiologic CT scans rendered by on-call radiology residents were recorded over a 9-month period. A panel of neuroradiologists reviewed and graded all the changed cases by consensus. An emergency department staff physician reviewed medical records of all submitted cases to determine clinical consequences of the misinterpretations. RESULTS: Significant misinterpretations were made in 21 (0.9%) of 2388 cases during the study period. There was a significant change in patient management in 12 of the cases, with a potentially serious change in patient outcome in two cases (0.08%). CONCLUSION: On-call radiology residents have a low rate of significant misinterpretations of neuroradiologic CT scans, and the potential to affect patient outcome is rare.     

A quality assurance elective for radiology residents

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: As a component of the practice-based core competency of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, all radiology residents must receive training to be able to evaluate and improve their patient care practices. To achieve this goal, our quality management section has implemented a comprehensive elective rotation in quality assurance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We have designed a month-long structured resident elective in radiology quality assurance at the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School. This elective provides a combination of didactic teaching, self-learning, and practical experience in the methodology, workings, and clinical applications of quality assurance as these relate to improving technical and clinical performance in a large academic radiology department. RESULTS: During this rotation, residents are exposed to the spectrum of commonly used tools and techniques used for performance improvement related to the practice of radiology. By actively participating in department and hospital quality assurance (QA) committee meetings, and through initiation of a mentored project coupled with didactic instruction, residents are exposed first hand to the practice and role of continuous quality monitoring and to the implementation and monitoring of action items. CONCLUSION: Participation in our QA elective provides our residents with a comprehensive exposure to the spectrum of quality-related problems, and equips them with the necessary tools to resolve many of the clinical or technical problems they are likely to encounter in their future careers. It is thus an appropriate tool to instruct residents in the competency of "practice-based learning and improvement."     

Preliminary Reports in the Emergency Department: Is a Subspecialist Radiologist More Accurate Than a Radiology Resident?

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To determine whether emergency department (ED) preliminary reports rendered by subspecialist attending radiologists who are reading outside their field of expertise are more accurate than reports rendered by radiology residents, and to compare error rates between radiologists and nonradiologists in the ED setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was performed at a large academic medical center with a busy ED. An electronic preliminary report generator was used in the ED to capture preliminary interpretations rendered in a clinical setting by radiology residents, junior attendings (within 2 years of taking their oral boards), senior attendings, and ED clinicians between August 1999 and November 2004. Each preliminary report was later reviewed by a final interpreting radiologist, and the preliminary interpretation was adjudicated for the presence of substantial discordances, defined as a difference in interpretation that might immediately impact the care of the patient. Of the 612,890 preliminary reports in the database, 65,780 (11%) met inclusion criteria for this study. A log-linear analysis was used to assess the effects of modality and type of author on preliminary report error rates. RESULTS: ED clinicians had significantly higher error rates when compared with any type of radiologist, regardless of modality. Within the radiologists, residents and junior attendings had lower error rates than did senior attendings, but the differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Subspecialized attending radiologists who interpret ED examinations outside their area of expertise have error rates similar to those of radiology residents. Nonradiologists have significantly higher error rates than radiologists and radiology residents when interpreting examinations in the ED.     

Percutaneous abscess drainage: use of related radiology services and associated economic impact on a radiology practice

PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of percutaneous abscess drainage on the usage and professional value of subsequent services provided by a radiology practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Percutaneous abscess drainage was selected as a marker interventional radiology procedure because of its pervasiveness and ease of identification of related services. Billing records were reviewed for 48 consecutive patients who underwent abscess drainage during a 9-month period. Current procedural terminology (CPT) codes for all radiology services during the subsequent 90 days were analyzed to identify those related to the initial drainage procedure. Professional relative value unit (RVU) impact was calculated. RESULTS: Initial abscess drainage services were identified by 2.6 +/- 1.2 CPT codes, but patients underwent 13.4 +/- 10.7 related radiology services during the subsequent 90 days. The professional RVU impact of subsequent services was 64% higher than that of initial procedures: initial drainage services accounted for 11.5 +/- 5.1 RVUs and all subsequent related radiology services accounted for 18.9 +/- 16.8 RVUs (P =.0042). Of those, additional interventional radiology procedures amounted to 10.7 +/- 12.8 RVUs, diagnostic radiology services 4.7 +/- 4.6 RVUs, and evaluation and management services 3.5 +/- 2.9 RVUs. CONCLUSION: Basic interventional radiology services may result in far more economic impact on radiology practices than initial direct procedure analyses suggest. For percutaneous abscess drainage, the professional RVU impact of subsequent services exceeds that of the initial procedure by 64%. Practices negotiating capitated contracts for interventional services need to consider the high value of such related services.     

COMPARE radiology: creating an interactive Web-based training program for radiology with multimedia authoring software

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Computer-based training has two primary benefits: Content can be presented interactively, and students can choose the time, place, and pace of learning. As a subject of medical education, radiology lends itself particularly well to computer-based training because of its highly visual content. To improve the efficiency of radiology training at their institution, the authors decided to create an interactive Web-based training site. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Working with a group of medical students knowledgeable in multimedia authoring, the authors used authoring software to create "COMPARE Radiology," an interactive training program that follows the modality-based structure of the undergraduate curriculum for radiology at the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany, and at medical schools worldwide. RESULTS: The Web-based program offers cases and exercises in radiographic anatomy at different selectable levels of difficulty, allowing users to test and build their knowledge of radiology. Pathologic images are initially presented without any further information. Additional information (patient history, laboratory results, reports from other imaging studies, and normal images for comparison) can be retrieved selectively and successively. Further information regarding the diagnosis and pathologic findings can be found by following links to external Web sites. The COMPARE Radiology program content is extended and updated regularly. The program is subject to internal peer review and can be evaluated by the user online. CONCLUSION: The authors' experience shows that a highly interactive Web-based training program for radiology, tailored to the requirements of the target group, can be developed economically by a team of medical students using an advanced storing system, with the guidance of a radiologist and without the help of professionally trained computer experts.     

Changing the face of radiology: redesigning patient-focused care

Mercy Hospital began the redesign of its patient-focused care in 1991. A steering committee composed of members from multiple disciplines was asked to create a seamless, patient-focused environment that would coordinate and align hospital resources in the service of patients and families. The director of diagnostic and clinical services served on that committee and used the committee's operating goals and principles to transform Mercy's radiology department into a diagnostic center. As part of its redesign effort, the radiology department reviewed its outpatient environment. Since so many of its patients came to have at least one of three procedures (EKGs, radiology exams and phlebotomy services) and since they must all register, the department decided to concentrate first on its registration procedure. A meeting with the medical records department resulted in the reception and scheduling staffs learning the registration process. After the two staffs went through an aggressive training program of about three months, it was possible to combine the two positions into one. Training staff members to schedule all modalities in the radiology department was next. With further cross-training, staff members now perform centralized scheduling for radiology, endoscopy and osteoporosis. Physicians can schedule such exams with only one phone call. Could technologists learn to draw blood too? Members of the healthcare team accepted the challenge to become more diversified and expand their skills. The author explains how the technologists became certified phlebotomists. With that success underway, the team accepted volunteers for EKG training. The author presents the benefits of the various steps taken, and looks at possible future opportunities in cross-training at the hospital.     

Radiología urgente: lo que el clínico espera del radiólogo

We review the relations between the radiology department and the clinicians that attend emergency patients, complementing our opinions with a survey conducted in the emergency departments of hospitals in the autonomous region of Madrid. A dedicated emergency radiology section is present in 63.2% of hospitals. Radiologists are readily available to consult in the emergency department in 100%. Radiologists are involved in the initial workup in 61% of hospitals, in follow-up in 22.3%, and in both the initial workup and follow-up in 16.7%. At least one common protocol is shared by radiologists and emergency clinicians in 73.7% of hospitals. Radiologists participate in deciding which imaging tests to perform in 78.9% of hospitals. Radiologists provide a written report of the examination in 83.3% of cases. Continual assessment of the relations between the emergency department and the radiology department will enable us to understand their dynamics and to know what aspects can be improved.     

Interdepartmental problem-solving as a method for teaching and learning systems-based practice

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Systems-based practice (SBP) has been the most difficult competency to implement in radiology residency programs, and methods for teaching and learning SBP concepts are needed. Because systems problems are usually multifactorial, a multidisciplinary approach is required. In our institution, survey data indicated patient dissatisfaction with emergency care. Prolonged wait times for radiology procedures were identified as a systems problem. When hospital administration asked the emergency medicine and radiology departments to work together to improve patient care, residents had a "real-world" opportunity to achieve the SBP competency. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Systems problems were identified and categorized. Data on patient transport were collected. Accurate time logs documenting when studies were ordered, performed, and interpreted were maintained. Data were analyzed at interdepartmental meetings and three improvements were planned and implemented. RESULTS: A direct line of communication was established between radiology and emergency medicine via a dedicated cellular telephone. A joint emergency medicine/radiology teaching conference was established. Additional transport personnel were employed. Residents in both departments increased their understanding of their role in the health care system, demonstrated an ability to identify systems problems and appropriately implement improvements, and enhanced their professional relationships. CONCLUSION: This innovative method integrated educational goals with patient care goals, was grounded in "real-life" experience, and held residents accountable for results. Competence in SBP, patient care, professionalism, and interpersonal and communication skills were demonstrated. We recommend this approach as an efficient and effective way to integrate SBP into everyday clinical practice.     

A tale of two CRs: hospital conducts side-by-side test

While we elected to install a digital radiography system in the busiest exam room in emergency room (ER) suite at our 535-bed hospital, we selected computed radiography as the primary platform for digital capture throughout the facility because of its flexibility, productivity and cost-effectiveness. We now use CR systems to handle six exam rooms and portable exams conducted by the radiology department, as well as imaging studies conducted in two ER exam rooms. Before committing to a CR vendor, we conducted an eight-week, side-by-side pilot study with two vendors' systems. One CR system was located in the emergency room and the other unit was located in the main radiology department. Our staff received education and training from both vendors. I led an evaluation team that included representatives from the radiology group, the information services (IS) department, biomedical engineering, staff physicians, ER physicians, pulmonologists and orthopedic specialists. Our team met to design the trial and develop a list of factors that technologists would use to evaluate the two systems. The team met after installation and again after the trial was complete to provide verbal input on each vendor for each category and to review feedback from the technologists' survey. Categories included image quality, interactions with each vendor's sales and service staff, workflow, time studies, durability of cassettes and plates, entry of John Doe patients for ER, and other factors. After the trial, we chose a system by unanimous vote. We learned a lot about CR technology throughout this process. Overall we are extremely satisfied with the platform we selected and with this method of evaluating the two systems prior to making this important decision.     

Emergency radiology: what clinicians expect from radiologists

We review the relations between the radiology department and the clinicians that attend emergency patients, complementing our opinions with a survey conducted in the emergency departments of hospitals in the autonomous region of Madrid. A dedicated emergency radiology section is present in 63.2% of hospitals. Radiologists are readily available to consult in the emergency department in 100%. Radiologists are involved in the initial workup in 61% of hospitals, in follow-up in 22.3%, and in both the initial workup and follow-up in 16.7%. At least one common protocol is shared by radiologists and emergency clinicians in 73.7% of hospitals. Radiologists participate in deciding which imaging tests to perform in 78.9% of hospitals. Radiologists provide a written report of the examination in 83.3% of cases. Continual assessment of the relations between the emergency department and the radiology department will enable us to understand their dynamics and to know what aspects can be improved.     

Emergency department image interpretation services at private community hospitals

PURPOSE: To investigate the methods used at private community hospitals for delivering emergency department (ED) image interpretation services. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The authors contacted a random national sample of 114 hospitals by telephone and administered an "ED Radiology Coverage" questionnaire. The questionnaire included queries about daytime image interpretation duties, nighttime radiology coverage arrangements, and radiologist staffing needs. Results were stratified on the basis of ED patient volumes and trauma center designation and were analyzed statistically by using multivariate and logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: Representatives of 97 EDs responded to the questionnaire. Community hospital radiologists performed daytime primary interpretation of radiographs at 39 (40%) of 97 EDs, computed tomographic (CT) scans at 91 (95%) of 96 EDs, and ultrasonographic images at 87.5 (93%) of 94 EDs. "ED-dedicated" radiologists performed this emergency radiology work in only two (2%) of 97 EDs. During the nighttime, eight (8%) of 97 EDs had no radiology coverage, 80 (82%) of 97 EDs used teleradiology services in some form, and nine (9%) of 97 EDs employed in-house, rotating "non-ED-dedicated" radiologists. Analysis of participant responses revealed that clinicians at 37 (38%) of 97 EDs were able to consult radiologists for nighttime radiography questions, and 87 (92%) of 95 EDs had nighttime CT scans read by radiologists in time for patient care decisions. Twenty-four (25%) of 97 EDs reported radiologist staffing shortages, but only one indicated that it was actively trying to recruit ED-dedicated radiologists. Results of logistic regression analysis indicated that higher ED patient volumes (P =.005) and the presence of a trauma center (P =.02) each significantly increases the probability of higher nighttime levels of radiologist coverage. CONCLUSION: There is great variation in the current provision of emergency radiology services in private community hospitals.