Women in Radiology: Exploring the Gender Disparity

PurposeIn 2015, only 1.5% of female Canadian medical students pursued radiology as a specialty, versus 5.6% of men. The aim of this study was to determine what factors attract and deter Canadian medical students from pursuing a career in radiology, and why fewer women than men pursue radiology as a specialty.MethodsAn anonymous online survey was e-mailed to English-speaking Canadian medical schools, and 12 of 14 schools participated. Subgroup analyses for gender and radiology interest were performed using the Fisher exact test (P < .05).ResultsIn total, 917 students (514 women; 403 men) responded. Direct patient contact was valued by significantly more women who were not considering specialization in radiology (87%), compared with women who were (70%; P < .0001). Physics deterred more women (47%) than it did men (21%), despite similar educational backgrounds for the two gender groups in physical sciences (P < .0001). More women who were considering radiology as a specialty rated intellectual stimulation as being important to their career choice (93%), compared with women who were not (80%; P = .002). Fewer women who were not interested in radiology had done preclinical observerships in radiology (20%), compared with men who were not interested in radiology (28%; P = .04).ConclusionsA perceived lack of direct patient contact dissuades medical students from pursuing radiology as a career. Women have less preclinical radiology exposure than do men. Programs that increase preclinical exposure to radiology subspecialties that have greater patient contact should be initiated, and an effort to actively recruit women to such programs should be made.     

Quality Measurements in Radiology: A Systematic Review of the Literature and Survey of Radiology Benefit Management Groups

PurposeAs the US health care system transitions toward value-based reimbursement, there is an increasing need for metrics to quantify health care quality. Within radiology, many quality metrics are in use, and still more have been proposed, but there have been limited attempts to systematically inventory these measures and classify them using a standard framework. The purpose of this study was to develop an exhaustive inventory of public and private sector imaging quality metrics classified according to the classic Donabedian framework (structure, process, and outcome).MethodsA systematic review was performed in which eligibility criteria included published articles (from 2000 onward) from multiple databases. Studies were double-read, with discrepancies resolved by consensus. For the radiology benefit management group (RBM) survey, the six known companies nationally were surveyed. Outcome measures were organized on the basis of standard categories (structure, process, and outcome) and reported using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.ResultsThe search strategy yielded 1,816 citations; review yielded 110 reports (29 included for final analysis). Three of six RBMs (50%) responded to the survey; the websites of the other RBMs were searched for additional metrics. Seventy-five unique metrics were reported: 35 structure (46%), 20 outcome (27%), and 20 process (27%) metrics. For RBMs, 35 metrics were reported: 27 structure (77%), 4 process (11%), and 4 outcome (11%) metrics. The most commonly cited structure, process, and outcome metrics included ACR accreditation (37%), ACR Appropriateness Criteria (85%), and peer review (95%), respectively.ConclusionsImaging quality metrics are more likely to be structural (46%) than process (27%) or outcome (27%) based (P < .05). As national value-based reimbursement programs increasingly emphasize outcome-based metrics, radiologists must keep pace by developing the data infrastructure required to collect outcome-based quality metrics.     

The Stability of Factors Influencing the Choice of Medical Specialty Among Medical Students and Postgraduate Radiology Trainees

ObjectiveTo investigate whether general psychological motivating factors that guide career selection of a medical specialty differ over the course of medical school and to compare differences in motivating factors among students choosing “controllable” lifestyle specialties, students choosing “uncontrollable” lifestyle specialties, and a cohort of radiology residents.Materials and MethodsAn anonymous survey was distributed to first- through fourth-year medical students and radiology residents at a single institution. Participants were asked to select their top three of seven factors that most influenced their choice of medical specialty. Fourth-year students were asked to designate the specialty to which they had applied.ResultsThe survey was distributed to 259 students and 47 radiology residents with a response rate of 93.8% (243 of 259) and 95.7% (45 of 47), respectively. The top three factors indicated by medical students were finding the daily work fulfilling, work–life balance, and interest in the subject. These top three factors were common to all medical student classes and did not differ between students choosing “controllable” versus “uncontrollable” fields. The factors uncommonly selected were similar personality to others in the field, attending income, competitiveness or prestige, and job market conditions. For radiology residents, the top three motivating factors were the same as for medical students.ConclusionThree out of seven motivating factors were universally important to trainees, regardless of their stage of medical training or their selection of a controllable versus uncontrollable lifestyle specialty. These data suggest the variety of career choices made by students may not derive from differing underlying values.     

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.     

The Relationship Between ACR Diagnostic Radiology In-Training Examination Scores and ABR Core Examination Outcome and Performance: A Multi-Institutional Study

PurposeWe analyzed multi-institutional data to understand the relationship of ACR Diagnostic Radiology In-Training Examination (DXIT) scores to ABR Core examination performance.MethodsWe collected DXIT rank scores and ABR Core examination outcomes and scores for anonymized residents from 12 different diagnostic radiology residency programs taking the ABR Core examination between 2013 and 2019. DXIT scores were grouped into quintiles based on rank score for residency year 1 (R1), residency year 2 (R2), and residency year 3 (R3) residents. Core outcome was scored as fail when conditionally passed or failed. Core performance was grouped using SD from the mean and measured by the percent of residents with scores below the mean. Differences between DXIT score quintiles for Core outcome and Core performance were statistically evaluated.ResultsDXIT and Core outcome data were available for 446 residents. The Core examination failure rate for the lowest quintile R1, R2, and R3 DXIT scores was 20.3%, 34.2%, and 38.0%, respectively. Core performance improved with higher R3 DXIT quintiles. Only 2 of 229 residents with R3 DXIT score ≥ 50th percentile failed the Core examination, with both failing residents having R2 DXIT scores in the lowest quintile.ConclusionsDXIT scores are useful evaluation metrics to identify a subgroup of residents at significantly higher risk for Core examination failure and another subgroup of residents at significantly lower risk for Core examination failure, with increasing predictive power with advancing residency year. These scores enable identification of approximately one-half of R3 residents whose risk of Core examination failure is negligible.     

The Relationship Between US Medical Licensing Examination Step Scores and ABR Core Examination Outcome and Performance: A Multi-institutional Study

PurposeWe analyzed multi-institutional data to understand the relationship of US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step scores to ABR Core examination performance to identify Step score tiers that stratify radiology residents into different Core performance groups.MethodsWe collected USMLE Step scores and ABR Core examination outcomes and scores for anonymized residents from 13 different diagnostic radiology residency programs taking the ABR Core examination between 2013 and 2019. USMLE scores were grouped into noniles using z scores and then aggregated into three tiers based on similar Core examination pass-or-fail outcomes. Core performance was grouped using standard deviation from the mean and then measured by the percent of residents with scores below the mean. Differences between Step tiers for Core outcome and Core performance were statistically evaluated (P < .05 considered significant).ResultsDifferences in Step 1 terciles Core failure rates (45.9%, 11.9%, and 3.0%, from lowest to highest Step tiers; n = 416) and below-mean Core performance (83.8%, 54.1%, and 21.1%, respectively; n = 402) were significant. Differences in Step 2 groups Core failure rates (30.0%, 10.6%, and 2.0%, from lowest to highest Step tiers; n = 387) and below-mean Core performance (80.0%, 43.7%, and 14.0%, respectively; n = 380) were significant. Step 2 results modified Core outcome and performance predictions for residents in Step 1 terciles of varying statistical significance.ConclusionsTiered scoring of USMLE Step results has value in predicting radiology resident performance on the ABR Core examination; effective stratification of radiology resident applicants can be done without reporting numerical Step scores.     

Assessment of the Radiology Support,Communication and Alignment Network to Reduce Medical Imaging Overutilization: A Multipractice Cohort Study

PurposeThe aim of this study was to determine whether participation in Radiology Support, Communication and Alignment Network (R-SCAN) results in a reduction of inappropriate imaging in a wide range of real-world clinical environments.MethodsThis quality improvement study used imaging data from 27 US academic and private practices that completed R-SCAN projects between January 25, 2015, and August 8, 2018. Each project consisted of baseline, educational (intervention), and posteducational phases. Baseline and posteducational imaging cases were rated as high, medium, or low value on the basis of validated ACR Appropriateness Criteria®. Four cohorts were generated: a comprehensive cohort that included all eligible practices and three topic-specific cohorts that included practices that completed projects of specific Choosing Wisely topics (pulmonary embolism, adnexal cyst, and low back pain). Changes in the proportion of high-value cases after R-SCAN intervention were assessed for each cohort using generalized estimating equation logistic regression, and changes in the number of low-value cases were analyzed using Poisson regression.ResultsUse of R-SCAN in the comprehensive cohort resulted in a greater proportion of high-value imaging cases (from 57% to 79%; odds ratio, 2.69; 95% confidence interval, 1.50-4.86; P = .001) and 345 fewer low-value cases after intervention (incidence rate ratio, 0.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.29-0.70; P < .001). Similar changes in proportion of high-value cases and number of low-value cases were found for the pulmonary embolism, adnexal cyst, and low back pain cohorts.ConclusionsR-SCAN participation was associated with a reduced likelihood of inappropriate imaging and is thus a promising tool to enhance the quality of patient care and promote wise use of health care resources.