Emergency radiology services at medical schools in the United States.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES. Little has been published on the delivery of emergency radiologic services in academic radiology training programs. METHODS. The author surveyed 127 medical schools in the United States concerning aspects of radiology services for their emergency rooms, including who interprets images, what training in emergency radiology is provided, and problems with film retrieval. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS. Emergency department radiographs most often are initially interpreted by a radiology resident and subsequently reviewed by a faculty radiologist who does not have a major interest in or time commitment to emergency radiology. Most schools describe problems such as disappearance of emergency department films and a paucity of provided clinical information. Only one third of schools provide formal instruction in emergency radiology for their radiology residents.     

Occupational necessity and educational invention: resident teaching of radiologic technologists

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVE: Radiology faces a severe and growing shortage of radiologic technologists. One way of redressing this problem is to improve the quality of education provided to radiologic technology students. Yet growing clinical demands increasingly erode faculty time for teaching. This study examined whether radiology residents could provide equivalent instruction in radiologic technology at lower cost, and whether such experience could enhance residents' interest in teaching as part of their careers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Course evaluation forms completed by the students in a required radiologic pathology course were reviewed, and student-reported faculty and resident performances in teaching were compared. Residents also were surveyed for their reactions to the experience of teaching this course. RESULTS: Ninety percent of students (27 of 30) either agreed or strongly agreed that the course was well taught by radiology faculty members, and 97% (29 of 30) either agreed or strongly agreed that the course was well taught by radiology residents. The total direct cost of instruction by radiology residents was 73% lower than the cost of instruction by faculty. Residents who participated in teaching found the experience worthwhile, and they described a wide variety of personal and educational benefits. CONCLUSION: Involving radiology residents in teaching can help redress the growing shortage of radiologic technologists, relieve some of the pressure on faculty time, and contribute to the professional development of the next generation of radiologists.     

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.     

24/7/365 Neuroradiologist Coverage Improves Resident Perception of Educational Experience,Referring Physician Satisfaction,and Turnaround Time

PurposeTo quantitatively and qualitatively assess the impact of attending neuroradiology coverage on radiology resident perceptions of the on-call experience, referring physician satisfaction, and final report turnaround times.Materials and Methods24/7/365 attending neuroradiologist coverage began in October 2016 at our institution. In March 2017, an online survey of referring physicians, (emergency medicine, neurosurgery, and stroke neurology) and radiology residents was administered at a large academic medical center. Referring physicians were queried regarding their perceptions of patient care, report accuracy, timeliness, and availability of attending radiologists before and after the implementation of overnight neuroradiology coverage. Radiology residents were asked about their level of independence, workload, and education while on-call. Turnaround time (TAT) was measured over a 5-month period before and after the implementation of overnight neuroradiology coverage.ResultsA total of 28 of 64 referring physicians surveyed responded, for a response rate of 67%. Specifically, 19 of 23 second (junior resident on-call) and third year radiology residents (senior resident on-call) replied, 4 of 4 stroke neurology fellows replied, 8 of 21 neurosurgery residents, and 16 of 39 emergency medicine residents replied. Ninety-five percent of radiology residents stated they had adequate independence on call, 100% felt they have enough faculty support while on call, and 84% reported that overnight attending coverage has improved the educational value of their on-call experience. Residents who were present both before and after the implementation of TAT metrics thought their education, and independence had been positively affected. After overnight neuroradiology coverage, 85% of emergency physicians perceived improved accuracy of reports, 69% noted improved timeliness, and 77% found that attending radiologists were more accessible for consultation. The surveyed stroke neurology fellows and neurosurgery residents reported positive perception of the TAT, report quality, and availability of accessibility of attending radiologist.ConclusionsIn concordance with prior results, overnight attending coverage significantly reduced turnaround time. As expected, referring physicians report increased satisfaction with overnight attending coverage, particularly with respect to patient care and report accuracy. In contrast to some prior studies, radiology residents reported both improved educational value of the on-call shifts and preserved independence. This may be due to the tasking the overnight neuroradiology attending with dual goals of optimized TAT, and trainee growth. Unique implementation including subspecialty trained attendings may facilitate radiology resident independence and educational experience with improved finalized report turnaround.     

Proposed program guidelines for pregnant radiology residents: a project supported by the American Association for Women Radiologists and the Association of Program Directors in Radiology

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Written institutional policies governing radiation exposure and work responsibilities for pregnant radiology residents are not uniform and often are nonexistent. Standardized program guidelines would allow residents and program directors alike to prepare for a resident pregnancy with objectivity and consistency. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The American Association for Women Radiologists (AAWR) launched a task force to revisit guidelines for the protection of pregnant residents from radiation exposure during training. We conducted two surveys of the Association of Program Directors in Radiology (APDR) membership. Survey 1 was designed to learn about existing program and institutional policies and to assess the need for and interest in standardized guidelines that would address radiation exposure and work responsibilities for pregnant radiology residents. Based on those responses, we drafted a set of program guidelines incorporating policies contributed by responding program directors. Our follow-up APDR survey, survey 2, was conducted to determine opinions and acceptance of the drafted program guidelines. Each survey was analyzed by using a proportion of means test. RESULTS: Fifty-five of 156 program director APDR members (35%) responded to survey 1. Only half the respondents had formal written policies at their respective institutions. Review of submitted policies showed widely divergent opinions about appropriate policies for pregnant radiology residents. Most (34/52; 75%) supported the development of standardized guidelines. In survey 2, 38/73 responding APDR members (53%) offered their opinions and comments on our drafted guidelines. Approximately 90% agreement was catalogued on 13 of 18 items (72%); a majority (>60%) agreed on all points, even the most controversial points concerning fluoroscopy. CONCLUSION: A minority of radiology residency programs have written policies addressing pregnancy during training. With expressed support from a majority of responding program directors, we have developed and present here proposed program guidelines for pregnant radiology residents to serve as a framework for radiology residents and program directors alike.     

Unifying the Silos of Subspecialized Radiology: The Essential Role of the General Radiologist

As radiology becomes increasingly subspecialized, conversations focus on whether the general radiologist is trending toward extinction. Current data indicate that the vast majority of graduating radiology residents now seek fellowship training. Practicing entirely within the narrow confines of one’s fellowship subspecialty area, however, is uncommon, with recent data indicating that more than half of all radiologists spend the majority of their work effort as generalists. From the traditional concept of the generalist as the non-fellowship-trained radiologist who interprets everything to the multispecialty-trained radiologist to the emergency radiologist who is a subspecialist but reads across the traditional anatomic divisions, the general radiologist of today and the future is one who remains broadly skilled and equipped to provide a wide spectrum of radiologic services. The successful future of many practices of all types and the specialty as a whole will require ongoing collaborative partnerships that include both general and subspecialized radiologists. This review article highlights various scenarios in which general radiologists provide value to different types of radiology practices.     

Educational impact of faculty review on radiology residents' radiographic interpretations

The objective of this study was to analyze the improvements in film reading performance made by radiology residents during their first six months of training. Five first-year residents and eight radiologic technology students each interpreted two of three matched sets of 39 films under two conditions. One set's readings were reviewed by a staff radiologist, while the other's were unreviewed. Six months later, each observer read all three sets. After the first six months of training, residents improved their reporting of findings. There was less improvement in technologists' readings. Review and instruction by staff, both in the laboratory and daily work settings, appeared to contribute to improved performance. Accuracy of residents' final diagnosis did not improve significantly. We conclude that a training system in which residents' film interpretations are reviewed by staff can lead to improved resident performance. When studied in a longitudinal fashion, these improvements are detectable within six months. This teaching system is used in many radiology departments.     

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.     

First-Year Radiology Residents Teaching Anatomy to First-Year Medical Students: A Symbiotic Relationship

ObjectivesOur institution has developed an educational program in which first-year radiology residents teach first-year medical students during gross anatomy laboratory sessions. The purpose of this study is to assess the impact of this program on medical student knowledge and perceptions of radiology, and on resident attitudes toward teaching.Materials and MethodsFirst-year resident pairs taught small groups of medical students during weekly 15-minute interactive sessions, and were evaluated on teaching skills by senior residents. A survey about attitudes toward radiology and a knowledge quiz were sent to the medical students, and a survey about attitudes toward teaching was sent to the first-year radiology residents, both pre-course and post-course.ResultsStudents’ radiology knowledge significantly increased between the pre-course and post-course survey across all categories tested (P < 0.001). Additionally, there were significant improvements in terms of students’ confidence in radiologic anatomy skills, perceived importance of radiology for medical training, familiarity with the field of radiology, and perception that radiologists are friendly (P < 0.001). Radiology residents felt more confident in their teaching proficiency (P < 0.001) by the conclusion of the course.ConclusionsResident-led small-group teaching sessions during anatomy laboratory are mutually beneficial for medical students and radiology residents. The program also allows radiology residents to be exposed early on in residency to teaching and academic medicine.     

Artificial Intelligence and the Trainee Experience in Radiology

The hype around artificial intelligence (AI) in radiology continues unabated, despite the fact that the exact role AI will play in future radiology practice remains undefined. Nevertheless, education of the radiologists of the future is ongoing and needs to account for the uncertainty of this new technology. Radiology residency training has evolved even before the recent advent of imaging AI. Yet radiology residents and fellows will likely one day experience the benefits of an AI-enabled clinical training. This will offer them a customized learning experience and the ability to analyze large quantities of data about their progress in residency, with substantially less manual effort than is currently required. Additionally, they will need to learn how to interact with AI tools in clinical practice and, more importantly, understand how to evaluate AI outputs in a critical fashion as yet another piece of information contributing to the interpretation of an imaging examination. Although the exact role AI will play in the future practice of radiology remains undefined, it will surely be integrated into the education of future radiologists.     

Self-subsidization of educational expenses by senior radiology residents

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study is to document the degree of self-subsidization of educational expenses by senior radiology residents. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Questionnaires were distributed to all radiology residents (n = 176) attending the New Jersey Medical School board review course held twice in 2006. Respondents (n = 175) documented the number and source of financial support for review courses they had or would attend, including the AFIP course in radiologic pathology. They also listed the amount of additional financial allowances paid to them by their programs and cited the funding source for the radiology board examinations. RESULTS: Average AFIP expenditure, including tuition, room, board, and travel, equaled 3,969 dollars +/- 45 dollars, of which 46% was paid by the residents themselves. The respondents attended, on average, two review courses costing 4,116 dollars +/- 149 dollars, bearing 77% of the costs. The average additional allowance paid to residents was 1,938 dollars +/- 156 dollars. Total board expenditures of 3,120 dollars, including fees and travel, were borne entirely by the residents. Total out-of-pocket expenses for these activities was 7,928 dollars +/- 165 dollars, which amounted to 16% of senior residents' average annual salary (49,746 dollars). CONCLUSION: The desire by both programs and trainees for success on the radiology board examination has stimulated the growth of review courses. The enduring popularity of the AFIP course has made this activity an essential rotation for most radiology residency programs. Each of these off-site opportunities incurs significant financial obligations to residents, and when added to the cost of the board exams, equals 16% of their average annual salary. Thus radiology residents are subsidizing their education to a considerable degree relative to their salaries. This study reveals that senior radiology residents significantly subsidize their education and bear the burden of hidden costs associated with their training.     

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.     

Radiology Resident Experience in a Community-Based Residency Program

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The authors performed this study to examine the educational experience of radiology residents by evaluating exposure to total number and variety of examinations. They examined this exposure in relation to current concepts of resident education regarding exposure to difference radiologic examinations, preparation for private practice, and 4th-year resident experience. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The number of examinations performed by radiology residents and the number classified as general versus cross-sectional radiology were analyzed by calculating the average number of studies performed per academic year during the past 6 years. RESULTS: In general, there was in increase in the total number of examinations performed per resident during the past 6 years. There was no statistically significant difference in the experience with general versus cross-sectional radiologic examinations. The data support the contention that 4th-year residents perform fewer examinations. CONCLUSION: Experience with all radiologic examinations is increasing as the overall utilization of radiology services increases. Fourth-year residents read fewer images; further studies are necessary to determine whether this finding reflects a planned decrease in workload or an increase in the complexity of the workload. It may be necessary to establish a minimum number and mixture of examinations to prepare residents for private practice.     

Diagnostic radiology residents in the classes of 1999 and 2000: fellowship and employment

OBJECTIVE: Most diagnostic radiology residents undergo fellowship training. Applications for fellowship positions are submitted during the third year of residency. We compared the number of residents undertaking fellowship, accepting jobs, and rescinding accepted fellowship positions to accept jobs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: During the 47th Association of University Radiologists meeting, participants from the American Association of Academic Chief Residents in Radiology completed a questionnaire regarding the intentions of third- and fourth-year residents in their programs. RESULTS: Seventy programs, representing 402 fourth-year and 395 third-year residents, responded. Of fourth-year residents, 322 (80.1%) accepted fellowships and 41 (10.2%) accepted jobs. Of third-year residents, 335 (84.8%) accepted fellowships. Eighty-eight (27.3%) fourth-year residents and 95 third-year residents (28.4%) accepted interventional radiology fellowships, and 104 (32.3%) fourth-year residents and 96 (28.7%) third-year residents accepted body imaging fellowships. Most residents who accepted fellowships did so in the same city in which they completed their residency training. Of fourth-year residents who accepted fellowship positions the year before, 14 (4.3%) withdrew their acceptance to pursue employment. CONCLUSION: Most residents opt for fellowship training in interventional radiology or body imaging. We postulate that the practice of accepting fellowships during the third year of residency may contribute to the percentage of residents who rescind fellowship acceptance to pursue employment. We suggest that consideration be given to changing this practice.     

In-house testing in emergency radiology. A method for teaching and credentialling radiology residents

Residents frequently learn emergency radiology simply by on-the-job experience. As an educational tool and as a credentialling vehicle, the authors developed an examination consisting of imaging unknowns as well as written questions. The authors have administered the test each of the last three years. After initial apprehension, the residents became comfortable with the annual examination. They now regard the follow-up conferences as the best-organized instruction in emergency radiology in the training program. The authors' experiences suggest that in-house examinations can serve as an important means for teaching and credentialling in emergency radiology.     

Results of the 2001 survey of the American Association of Academic Chief Residents in Radiology

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The American Association of Academic Chief Residents in Radiology (A3CR2) conducts an annual survey of residency training programs. The survey data allow comparative analyses to be performed among training programs regarding resident education, benefits, clinical demands, and other resident-related issues. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Questionnaires were mailed to all accredited programs registered in the A3CR2 database (150 total programs). The yearly questions address demographic information concerning the individual programs including academic affiliation, number of radiologic examinations performed per resident, changes in the number of residents per program, and financial compensation. The rotating questions, which are revisited every 4 years, focused on preparation for the American Board of Radiology examinations, educational issues, and employment outlook. RESULTS: Completed surveys were received from 55 programs (37.3%). Among the responses, three issues prevailed: (a) increased number of examinations performed per resident, with resultant decrease in educational time, (b) decreased quality of education in all sections of radiology and decreased number of educational conferences, and (c) improved employment outlook, but continued trend of fewer residents choosing a career in academics. CONCLUSION: The current boom in the radiology job market and the increased number of radiologic examinations performed annually appear to adversely affect radiologic education through a decreased number of conferences and an increased number of radiologic examinations performed per resident.     

Emergency imaging discrepancy rates at a level 1 trauma center: identifying the most common on-call resident “misses”

The focus of our research is to identify the most frequently reported on-call discrepancies at our hospital by modality and level of resident training. Our intent is to identify specific areas of concern that may be amenable to improvement through initiation of dedicated resident training in the field of emergency radiology. Our study included 648 significant discrepancies from 193,722 studies ordered through the emergency department over a 7-year period. The overall discrepancy rates were calculated for each resident level of training and modality type. Significance was determined using χ2 testing with α?=?0.05. The most common types of discrepancies were identified. The overall rate of reported discrepancies was low for all levels of training (0.23–0.42 %) with a small, but statistically significant, decrease in rate for the senior residents. Common categories of discrepancies for all residents included fractures on radiographs (XR) and computed tomography (CT), masses and hemorrhage on CT, and lung nodules and pulmonary infiltrates on radiographs. Specific discrepancies reported more frequently for new call-takers included phalangeal fractures on XR as well as white matter disease, hepatic lacerations, pyelonephritis, peritoneal fluid, lymphadenopathy, and pneumothoraces on CT. It is our recommendation that radiology resident training programs ensure that the common discrepancies illustrated herein are specifically addressed as part of a dedicated emergency radiology course.     

Canadian radiology residents' knowledge of sedation and analgesia: a web-based survey.

OBJECTIVE: An increasing number of procedures in the radiology department require the use of conscious sedation, with the agents often administered by the radiologist. We sought to determine the level of understanding of the nature and use of such agents in Canadian radiology residents. METHODS: A Web-based questionnaire was distributed to residents from 8 Canadian radiology residency programs. The questions concerned the pharmacology of common medications for conscious sedation, their indications and appropriateness for use, and the experience and attitudes of residents toward formal training in conscious sedation. RESULTS: A total of 178 surveys were dispersed and yielded an adjusted response rate of 51%. Most residents stated that they had not received any formal training in conscious sedation (65%) and were in favour (68%) of having such training. Although the residents typically correctly prescribed appropriate dosages of lorazepam (54%), midazolam (51%), and fentanyl (58.7%), excessively high dosages of midazolam were ordered by 15.9% of the residents. Knowledge regarding the onset of action and duration of commonly used medications was poor. Residents gave the correct response with regard to duration of action for lorazepam (23.8%), midazolam (31.9%), diazepam (15.9%), and fentanyl (28.6%). The correct responses to onset of action were as follows: for fentanyl, 22.2%; for midazolam, 19.1%; for lorazepam, 6.35%; and for diazepam, 11.1%. Residents were uncertain regarding the maximum dosage of local anesthetics that a patient could receive, with 1.5% and 20.6% correct responses regarding bupivacaine and lidocaine, respectively. CONCLUSION: Despite the recent publication of conscious sedation guidelines for nonanesthesiologists, this survey suggests that Canadian radiology residents are not receiving adequate training in the use of medications required for conscious sedation.     

The “night stalker” effect: Are quality improvements with a dedicated night call rotation sustained?

The authors assessed whether the addition of a second-year diagnostic radiology resident assigned to cover the night shift at a major urban university hospital has a sustained effect on the number and clinical significance of “missed” radiologic findings. Radiographs interpreted overnight in the emergency department by radiology residents between January 1992 and December 1992 were reviewed daily by emergency radiology attending staff. A list of patients for whom there was a modification in the final radiologic interpretation was given to the emergency department physicians, who reviewed each case, scored the urgency of patient recall, and estimated the likelihood of patient morbidity attributable to the miss. The relative performance of after-hours residents was compared on the five nights per week with the dedicated night resident vs. the two nights per week without the dedicated night resident (control group). Of 22,295 after-hours examinations performed during the study period, 304 (1.36%) misses were recorded, nearly identical to the miss rate for the preceding 6 months. The percentage per examination interpreted (and number) of missed cases stratified by recall score for the control and dedicated night resident groups, respectively, were: (a) immediate, 0.62% (34) and 0.29% (49); (b) within 48 hours, 0.31% (17) and 0.32% (54); (c) no recall, 0.71% (24) and 0.29% (39); (d) finding already recognized by emergency department physicians, 0.44% (24) and 0.23% (39); total, 2.09% (114) and 1.13% (190). The difference in total discordance rates is statistically significant (P < 1 × 10⁻¹⁵). Our previously reported improvement in the quality of after-hours radiographic interpretation due to the addition of a dedicated night shift resident is sustained in a new group of residents. This confirms that the improvement is real and not a manifestation of the measurement methods.     

The need for clinical trials in radiology

The dependence of radiologic practice on habit and anecdotal evidence puts in doubt the appropriateness of care. Influences in the United States health-care system require that the specialty of radiology emphasize a transition to more appropriate care to reduce waste, thus improving patient outcomes and reducing cost. Understanding what constitutes the most appropriate care depends on improving the evidence basis for imaging practice. This can be accomplished through the participation of radiologists in multicenter clinical trials that are more pertinent, valid, reliable, and generalizable than past radiologic research. Improved training of residents and fellows in critical thinking, the conduct of research, and better appreciation of the value of research to the specialty, as well as increasing infrastructural support for imaging clinical trials, are necessary prerequisites for improving the appropriateness of radiologic practice.