Characteristics of COVID-19 Community Practice Declines in Noninvasive Diagnostic Imaging Professional Work

PurposeThe operational and financial impact of the widespread coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) curtailment of imaging services on radiology practices is unknown. We aimed to characterize recent COVID-19-related community practice noninvasive diagnostic imaging professional work declines.MethodsUsing imaging metadata from nine community radiology practices across the United States between January 2019 and May 2020, we mapped work relative value unit (wRVU)-weighted stand-alone noninvasive diagnostic imaging service codes to both modality and body region. Weekly 2020 versus 2019 wRVU changes were analyzed by modality, body region, and site of service. Practice share χ² testing was performed.ResultsAggregate weekly wRVUs ranged from a high of 120,450 (February 2020) to a low of 55,188 (April 2020). During that −52% wRVU nadir, outpatient declines were greatest (−66%). All practices followed similar aggregate trends in the distribution of wRVUs between each 2020 versus 2019 week (P = .96-.98). As a percentage of total all-practice wRVUs, declines in CT (20,046 of 63,992; 31%) and radiography and fluoroscopy (19,196; 30%) were greatest. By body region, declines in abdomen and pelvis (16,203; 25%) and breast (12,032; 19%) imaging were greatest. Mammography (−17%) and abdominal and pelvic CT (−14%) accounted for the largest shares of total all-practice wRVU reductions. Across modality-region groups, declines were far greatest for mammography (−92%).ConclusionsSubstantial COVID-19-related diagnostic imaging work declines were similar across community practices and disproportionately impacted mammography. Decline patterns could facilitate pandemic second wave planning. Overall implications for practice workflows, practice finances, patient access, and payment policy are manifold.     

The radiology workforce's response to the COVID-19 pandemic in the Middle East,North Africa and India

IntroductionThis study aimed to investigate the response of the radiology workforce to the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on professional practice in India and eight other Middle Eastern and North African countries. It further investigated the levels of fear and anxiety among this workforce during the pandemic.MethodsA quantitative cross-sectional study was conducted using an online survey from 22 May-2 June 2020 among radiology workers employed during the COVID-19 pandemic. The survey collected information related to the following themes: (1) demographic characteristics, (2) the impact of COVID-19 on radiology practice, and (3) fear and (4) anxiety emanating from the global pandemic.ResultsWe received 903 responses. Fifty-eight percent had completed training on infection control required for handling COVID-19 patients. A large proportion (79.5%) of the respondents strongly agreed or agreed that personal protective equipment (PPE) was adequately available at work during the pandemic. The respondents reported experiences of work-related stress (42.9%), high COVID-19 fear score (83.3%) and anxiety (10%) during the study period.ConclusionThere was a perceived workload increase in general x-ray and Computed Tomography imaging procedures because they were the key modalities for the initial and follow-up investigations of COVID-19. However, there was adequate availability of PPE during the study period. Most radiology workers were afraid of being infected with the virus. Fear was predominant among workers younger than 30 years of age and also in temporary staff. Anxiety occurred completely independent of gender, age, experience, country, place of work, and work status.Implications for practiceIt is important to provide training and regular mental health support and evaluations for healthcare professionals, including radiology workers, during similar future pandemics.     

A Descriptive Revenue Analysis of a Wound-Center IR Collaboration to Treat Lower Extremity Venous Ulcers

PurposeTo describe the revenue from a collaboration between a dedicated wound care center and an interventional radiology (IR) practice for venous leg ulcer (VLU) management at a tertiary care center.Materials and MethodsThis retrospective study included 36 patients with VLU referred from a wound care center to an IR division during the 10-month active study period (April 2017 to January 2018) with a 6-month surveillance period (January 2018 to June 2018). A total of 15 patients underwent endovascular therapy (intervention group), whereas 21 patients did not (nonintervention group). Work relative value units (wRVUs) and dollar revenue were calculated using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Physician Fee Schedule.ResultsThree sources of revenue were identified: evaluation and management (E&M), diagnostic imaging, and procedures. The pathway generated 518.15 wRVUs, translating to $37,522. Procedures contributed the most revenue (342.27 wRVUs, $18,042), followed by E&M (124.23 wRVUs, $8,881), and diagnostic imaging (51.65 wRVUs, $10,599). Intervention patients accounted for 86.7% of wRVUs (449.48) and 80.0% of the revenue ($30,010). An average of 33 minutes (38.3 hours total) and 2.06 hours (36.8 hours total) were spent on E&M visits and procedures, respectively.ConclusionsIn this collaboration between the wound center and IR undertaken to treat VLU, IR and E&M visits generated revenue and enabled procedural and downstream imaging revenue.     

Initial Impact of COVID-19 on Radiology Practices: An ACR/RBMA Survey

PurposeThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic affected radiology practices in many ways. The aim of this survey was to estimate declines in imaging volumes and financial impact across different practice settings during April 2020.MethodsThe survey, comprising 48 questions, was conducted among members of the ACR and the Radiology Business Management Association during May 2020. Survey questions focused on practice demographics, volumes, financials, personnel and staff adjustments, and anticipation of recovery.ResultsDuring April 2020, nearly all radiology practices reported substantial (56.4%-63.7%) declines in imaging volumes, with outpatient imaging volumes most severely affected. Mean gross charges declined by 50.1% to 54.8% and collections declined by 46.4% to 53.9%. Percentage reductions did not correlate with practice size. The majority of respondents believed that volumes would recover but not entirely (62%-88%) and anticipated a short-term recovery, with a surge likely in the short term due to postponement of elective imaging (52%-64%). About 16% of respondents reported that radiologists in their practices tested positive for COVID-19. More than half (52.3%) reported that availability of personal protective equipment had become an issue or was inadequate. A majority (62.3%) reported that their practices had existing remote reading or teleradiology capabilities in place before the pandemic, and 22.3% developed such capabilities in response to the pandemic.ConclusionsRadiology practices across different settings experienced substantial declines in imaging volumes and collections during the initial wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in April 2020. Most are actively engaged in both short- and long-term operational adjustments.     

Impact of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic on Imaging Case Volumes

ObjectiveThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had significant economic impact on radiology with markedly decreased imaging case volumes. The purpose of this study was to quantify the imaging volumes during the COVID-19 pandemic across patient service locations and imaging modality types.MethodsImaging case volumes in a large health care system were retrospectively studied, analyzing weekly imaging volumes by patient service locations (emergency department, inpatient, outpatient) and modality types (x-ray, mammography, CT, MRI, ultrasound, interventional radiology, nuclear medicine) in years 2020 and 2019. The data set was split to compare pre-COVID-19 (weeks 1-9) and post-COVID-19 (weeks 10-16) periods. Independent-samples t tests compared the mean weekly volumes in 2020 and 2019.ResultsTotal imaging volume in 2020 (weeks 1-16) declined by 12.29% (from 522,645 to 458,438) compared with 2019. Post-COVID-19 (weeks 10-16) revealed a greater decrease (28.10%) in imaging volumes across all patient service locations (range 13.60%-56.59%) and modality types (range 14.22%-58.42%). Total mean weekly volume in 2020 post-COVID-19 (24,383 [95% confidence interval 19,478-29,288]) was statistically reduced (P = .003) compared with 33,913 [95% confidence interval 33,429-34,396] in 2019 across all patient service locations and modality types. The greatest decline in 2020 was seen at week 16 specifically for outpatient imaging (88%) affecting all modality types: mammography (94%), nuclear medicine (85%), MRI (74%), ultrasound (64%), interventional (56%), CT (46%), and x-ray (22%).DiscussionBecause the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic remains uncertain, these results may assist in guiding short- and long-term practice decisions based on the magnitude of imaging volume decline across different patient service locations and specific imaging modality types.     

Impact of COVID-19 social distancing regulations on outpatient diagnostic imaging volumes and no-show rates

BackgroundThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has significantly impacted outpatient radiology practices, necessitating change in practice infrastructure and workflow.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to assess the consequences of social distancing regulations on 1) outpatient imaging volume and 2) no-show rates per imaging modality.MethodsVolume and no-show rates of a large, multicenter metropolitan healthcare system outpatient practice were retrospectively stratified by modality including radiography, CT, MRI, ultrasonography, PET, DEXA, and mammography from January 2 to July 21, 2020. Trends were assessed relative to timepoints of significant state and local social distancing regulatory changes.ResultsThe decline in imaging volume and rise in no-show rates was first noted on March 10, 2020 following the declaration of a state of emergency in New York State (NYS). Total outpatient imaging volume declined 85% from baseline over the following 5 days. Decreases varied by modality: 88% for radiography, 75% for CT, 73% for MR, 61% for PET, 80% for ultrasonography, 90% for DEXA, and 85% for mammography. Imaging volume and no-show rate recovery preceded the mask mandate of April 15, 2020, and further trended along with New York City's reopening phases. No-show rates recovered within 2 months of the height of the pandemic, however, outpatient imaging volume has yet to recover to baseline after 3 months.ConclusionThe total outpatient imaging volume declined alongside an increase in the no-show rate following the declaration of a state of emergency in NYS. No-show rates recovered within 2 months of the height of the pandemic with imaging volume yet to recover after 3 months.Clinical impactUnderstanding the impact of social distancing regulations on outpatient imaging volume and no-show rates can potentially aid other outpatient radiology practices and healthcare systems in anticipating upcoming changes as the COVID-19 pandemic evolves.     

Value of Second-Opinion Interpretation of Outside-Facility Breast Imaging Studies to a Radiology Department and Cancer Center

PurposeThe aim of this study was to estimate the physician work effort for formal written breast radiology second-opinion reports of imaging performed at outside facilities, to compare this effort with a per-report credit system, and to estimate the downstream value of subsequent services provided by the radiology department and institution at a National Comprehensive Cancer Network–designated comprehensive cancer center.MethodsA retrospective review was conducted of consecutive reports for “outside film review” from July 1, 2015, to June 30, 2018. The number and types of breast imaging studies reinterpreted for each individual patient request were tabulated for requests for a 3-month sample from each year. Physician effort was estimated on the basis of the primary interpretation CMS fee schedule for work relative value units (wRVUs) for the study-specific Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code and study type. This effort was compared with the interpreting radiologist credit of 0.44 wRVUs per report. Subsequent imaging and evaluation and management encounters generated by these second-opinion patient requests were tracked through June 30, 2019.ResultsFor the 3-year period reviewed, 2,513 unique patient requests were identified, averaging 837 per fiscal year. For January to March of 2016, 2017, and 2018, 645 unique patient reports were identified. For these reports, 2,216 studies were reinterpreted, with an estimated physician effort of 2,660 wRVUs compared with 284 wRVUs on the basis of per-report credit. The range of annualized wRVUs for all outside studies interpreted and credited per specific CPT code was 3,135 to 3,804 (mean, 3,547). However, the institutional relative value unit credit received for fiscal years 2015, 2016, and 2017, on the basis of the number of patient requests, was only 385, 375, and 345 wRVUs, respectively.ConclusionsThis study demonstrates the substantial work effort necessary to provide formal second-opinion interpretations for breast imaging studies at a National Comprehensive Cancer Network cancer center. The authors believe that these data support billing for the study-specific CPT code and crediting the radiologist with the full wRVUs for each study reinterpreted.     

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic Shifts Inpatient Imaging Utilization

ObjectiveThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had a significant impact on imaging utilization across practice settings. The purpose of this study was to quantify the change in the composition of inpatient imaging volumes for modality types and Current Procedural Terminology–coded groups during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsA retrospective study of inpatient imaging volumes in a large health care system was performed, analyzing weekly imaging volumes by modality types (radiography, CT, MRI, ultrasound, interventional radiology, nuclear medicine) in years 2020 and 2019. The data set was split to compare pre-COVID-19 (weeks 1-9) and post-COVID-19 (weeks 10-16) periods. Further subanalyses compared early post-COVID-19 (weeks 10-13) and late post-COVID-19 (weeks 14-16) periods. Statistical comparisons were performed using χ² and independent-samples t tests.ResultsCompared with 2019, total inpatient imaging volume in 2020 post-COVID-19, early and late post-COVID-19 periods, declined by 13.6% (from 78,902 to 68,168), 16.6% (from 45,221 to 37,732), and 9.6% (from 33,681 to 30,436), respectively. By week 16, inpatient imaging volume rebounded and was only down 4.2% (from 11,003 to 10,546). However, a statistically significant shift (P < .0001) in the 2020 composition mix was observed largely comprised of radiography (74.3%), followed by CT (12.7%), ultrasound (8%), MRI (2.4%), interventional radiology (2.3%), and nuclear medicine (0.4%). Although the vast majority of imaging studies declined, few Current Procedural Terminology–coded groups showed increased trends in imaging volumes in the late post-COVID-19 period, including CT angiography chest, radiography chest, and ultrasound venous duplex.DiscussionDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, we observed a decrease in inpatient imaging volumes accompanied by a shift away from cross-sectional imaging toward radiography. These findings could have significant implications in planning for a potential resurgence.     

Un año completo de pandemia COVID-19 y su impacto en la Unidad de Radiología Intervencionista

ObjectivesTo describe the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the interventional radiology unit at our hospital in the first year of the pandemic.Material and methodsThis prospective observational study included 83 consecutive patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections who underwent an interventional radiology procedure in the period comprising March 13, 2020 through March 13, 2021. We describe the repercussions of the situation on the unit's total activity, as well as on its activity during the different phases of the pandemic.ResultsTechnical and clinical success were achieved in 96.43% and 82.14% of cases, respectively. During follow-up throughout the year, 68 patients remained alive and 15 died from their underlying disease. No complications related with interventional procedures occurred, and activity declined by only 12% in comparison with the same period in the previous year (2019-2020, without COVID). Similarly, the decrease in relative value units and radiology activity units was only 13% and 12%, respectively.ConclusionThe Covid-19 pandemic has been a challenge in our daily work, leading to an overall decrease in the number of procedures. Nevertheless, the interventional radiology unit has been actively involved in caring for Covid-19 patients, performing a wide variety of necessary procedures. Following a series of specific measures and protocols has enabled us to perform interventional radiology procedures safely during the pandemic.     

Rescheduling Nonurgent Care in Radiology: Implementation During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic

ObjectiveTo meet hospital preparedness for the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and ACR recommended delay of all nonemergent tests and elective procedures. The purpose of this article is to report our experience for rescheduling nonemergent imaging and procedures during the pandemic at our tertiary academic institution.MethodsWe rescheduled the nonemergent imaging and procedures in our hospitals and outpatient centers from March 16 to May 4, 2020. We created a tiered priority system to reschedule patients for whom imaging could be delayed with minimal clinical impact. The radiologists performed detailed chart reviews for decision making. We conducted daily virtual huddles with discussion of rescheduling strategies and issue tracking.ResultsUsing a snapshot during the rescheduling period, there was a 53.4% decrease in imaging volume during the period of March 16 to April 15, 2020, compared with the same time period in 2019. The total number of imaging studies decreased from 38,369 in 2019 to 17,891 in 2020 during this period. Although we saw the largest reduction in outpatient imaging (72.3%), there was also a significant decrease in inpatient (40.5%) and emergency department (48.9%) imaging volumes.DiscussionThe use of multiple communication channels was critical in relaying the information to all our stakeholders, patients, referring physicians, and the radiology workforce. Teamwork, quick adoption, and adaptation of changing strategies was important given the fluidity of the situation.     

The impact of COVID-19 quarantine efforts on emergency radiology and trauma cases

ObjectiveAmidst COVID-19 pandemic, many states have issued stay at home advisories and non-essential business closures to limit public exposure. During this “quarantine” period, it is important to understand the volume and types of emergency/trauma radiology cases to better prepare for the continuing and future pandemics. This study demonstrates new trends in pathologies and an overall increase in positive exams.MethodsA retrospective review of emergency department's imaging during the initial two weeks of this state's quarantine period, 3/23/2020–4/5/2020 was compared to similar dates of the previous year (“pre-quarantine” period), 3/25/2019–4/7/2019. One thousand emergency radiology and 991 trauma cases were evaluated. Of the emergency radiology cases 500 studies from each period were assessed, and from the trauma cases, 783 cases from pre-quarantine and 315 from the quarantine period were examined. Chi-square analysis was performed to assess for statistical significance.ResultsOverall there were 43.0% fewer emergency radiology studies performed during the quarantine period (n = 4530) compared to pre-quarantine period (n = 2585). Additionally, the number of positive cases was significantly higher (P = 0.0001) during the quarantine period (43.0%) compared to the pre-quarantine period (30.2%). Several trends in types of trauma were observed, including a significant increase in domestic violence during the quarantine period (P = 0.0081).DiscussionDifferent volumes and types of emergency/trauma imaging cases were observed during the recent quarantine period. Findings may assist emergency radiology departments to plan for future pandemics or COVID-19 resurgences by offering evidence of the types and volume of emergency radiology cases one might expect.     

Trends in Medicare Reimbursement and Work Relative Value Unit Production in Radiation Oncology

PurposeMedicare payments to individual physicians are released annually by the CMS. The purpose of this study is to analyze trends in Medicare reimbursement and work relative value unit (wRVU) production to radiation oncologists.Materials and MethodsThe Medicare Physician Supplier and Other Provider Public Use File and the CMS Physician Fee Schedule Relative Value Files (to calculate wRVUs) for the calendar years 2012 to 2015 were used in this analysis. Medicare reimbursement was aggregated for each calendar year. Using the CMS Physician Fee Schedule Relative Value Files, the number of Medicare wRVUs was calculated for each radiation oncologist.ResultsIn 2015, 4,323 radiation oncologists produced 12,895,298 wRVUs compared with 11,352,286 wRVUs produced in 2012. These datasets include only Medicare reimbursements and do not include wRVUs from private insurance or other payers. In 2015, radiation oncologists produced a median of 2,486 wRVUs from Medicare (range 3 to 24,349). Billing to Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System Code 77427 (radiation treatment management, five treatments), a proxy for total radiation treatments, fell from 1,111,670 in 2012 to 1,039,403 in 2015, a decline of 7%.ConclusionThe total number of wRVUs produced by radiation oncologists has risen by 14% from 2012 to 2015. However, the number of external beam radiation fractions has declined by approximately 7% over this same period, likely due to a trend toward hypofractionated courses of treatment and use of special treatment modalities such as proton beam therapy or stereotactic body radiation therapy.     

Early-Stage Radiology Volume Effects and Considerations with the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic: Adaptations,Risks, and Lessons Learned

ObjectiveThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic resulted in significant loss of radiologic volume as a result of shelter-at-home mandates and delay of non-time-sensitive imaging studies to preserve capacity for the pandemic. We analyze the volume-related impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on six academic medical systems (AMSs), three in high COVID-19 surge (high-surge) and three in low COVID-19 surge (low-surge) regions, and a large national private practice coalition. We sought to assess adaptations, risks of actions, and lessons learned.MethodsPercent change of 2020 volume per week was compared with the corresponding 2019 volume calculated for each of the 14 imaging modalities and overall total, outpatient, emergency, and inpatient studies in high-surge AMSs and low-surge AMSs and the practice coalition.ResultsSteep examination volume drops occurred during week 11, with slow recovery starting week 17. The lowest total AMS volume drop was 40% compared with the same period the previous year, and the largest was 70%. The greatest decreases were seen with screening mammography and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scans, and the smallest decreases were seen with PET/CT, x-ray, and interventional radiology. Inpatient volume was least impacted compared with outpatient or emergency imaging.ConclusionLarge percentage drops in volume were seen from weeks 11 through 17, were seen with screening studies, and were larger for the high-surge AMSs than for the low-surge AMSs. The lowest drops in volume were seen with modalities in which delays in imaging had greater perceived adverse consequences.     

Medical student education in the time of COVID-19: A virtual solution to the introductory radiology elective

Rationale and objectivesDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, medical educators and students are facing unprecedented challenges while navigating the new virtual landscape that social-distancing policies mandate. In response to these challenges, a new virtual introduction to radiology elective was established with unique online resources and curriculum.Materials and methodsA previously in-person 2-week introductory radiology elective was converted into a completely virtual experience using an internally developed, open-source, peer-reviewed, web-based teaching modules combined with virtual lectures, interdisciplinary conferences, and readout sessions of de-identified cases loaded to a DICOM viewer. Students from the first four months of course enrollment completed a multiple choice pre- and post-course knowledge assessments and a 5-point Likert Scale survey as part of their educational experience.ResultsIn total, 26 4th-year medical students participated over 4 separate 2-week sessions from July to October of 2020. This included 12 students from the home intuition and 14 visiting students. On average, students scored 62.2% on the 55-question pre-test and 89.0% on the same test upon completion of the course, a statistically significant increase (p < 0.001). All 26 students felt engaged throughout the course. All 26 agreed (23 “strongly agreed”) that they were more comfortable looking at imaging studies following the course. All 26 also agreed (21 “strongly agreed”) that the course helped them prepare for their future clinical rotations and careers.ConclusionInitial pilot program using unique web-based resources and student encounters during a two-week virtual introductory radiology elective proved to be a positive educational experience for the first 26 students enrolled.     

COVID-19: A call for mentorship in radiology

During the COVID-19 pandemic, mentorship relationships have undergone significant strain. Sudden changes in the practice environment have caused radiologists to focus their attention to more immediate and essential clinical needs, thus leaving important extracurricular non-clinical endeavors like mentorship by the wayside. However, mentorship is essential more than ever during the pandemic to build strength and resilience in radiology. Specifically, mentorship can foster job resilience, facilitate career development, promote diversity, support wellness, and stimulate future practice growth during this pandemic. Practical actions are described that mentors can follow to help develop and sustain mentorship relationships during the pandemic.SummaryMentorship is critical now during the COVID-19 pandemic to build strength and resilience in radiology.     

The current position of cardiac radiology in the United Kingdom

A questionnaire was sent to 39 hospitals, in the United Kingdom, 38 with a cardiosurgical unit and one with a cardiac radiology department. The object was to ascertain the commitment of consultant radiologists to cardiovascular radiology and cardiac radiology in particular and to evaluate training given to non-consultant radiologists in this subspecialty. Thirty-five (90%) departments responded, 33 of which had a cardiac radiology consultant. All but three of the 63 consultant cardiac radiologists report cine angiography. Of the 63, 26 perform one additional imaging technique and 21 perform two or more additional imaging techniques. The remaining 16 consultants only report on cine angiography. Only nine of 21 departments in which some form of cardiac radiology training was given, had a rotation through the subspecialty at registrar or senior registrar level. Twenty-one departments thought that an additional post in cardiac radiology would be sought if trained people were available.     

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on radiology education,training, and practice: A narrative review

Radiology education and training is of paramount clinical importance given the prominence of medical imaging utilization in effective clinical practice. The incorporation of basic radiology in the medical curriculum has continued to evolve, focusing on teaching image interpretation skills, the appropriate ordering of radiological investigations, judicious use of ionizing radiation, and providing exposure to interventional radiology. Advancements in radiology have been driven by the digital revolution, which has, in turn, had a positive impact on radiology education and training. Upon the advent of the corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, many training institutions and hospitals adhered to directives which advised rescheduling of non-urgent outpatient appointments. This inevitably impacted the workflow of the radiology department, which resulted in the reduction of clinical in-person case reviews and consultations, as well as in-person teaching sessions. Several medical schools and research centers completely suspended face-to-face academic activity. This led to challenges for medical teachers to complete the radiology syllabus while ensuring that teaching activities continued safely and effectively. As a result, online teaching platforms have virtually replaced didactic face-to-face lectures. Radiology educators also sought other strategies to incorporate interactive teaching sessions while adopting the e-learning approach, as they were cognizant of the limitations that this may have on students’ clinical expertise. Migration to online methods to review live cases, journal clubs, simulation-based training, clinical interaction, and radiology examination protocolling are a few examples of successfully addressing the limitations in reduced clinical exposure. In this review paper, we discuss (1) The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on radiology education, training, and practice; (2) Challenges and strategies involved in delivering online radiology education for undergraduates and postgraduates during the COVID-19 pandemic; and (3) Difference between the implementation of radiology education during the COVID-19 pandemic and pre-COVID-19 era.     

Trainee and Faculty Perceptions of Remote PACS Workstations and Next Steps in a Large US Academic Medical Institution

ObjectiveRemote workstations were rapidly deployed in our academic radiology practice in late March 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Although well-received by faculty, there were concerns for the impact on resident education.Materials and MethodsSurveys of the radiology trainees and faculty were conducted online seven- and thirteen-months following workstation deployment as a part of a quality improvement project to assess the impact on radiology education and faculty wellness, as well as assess the desired trajectory of remote work in an academic setting.ResultsThe majority of trainees (52%) reported the implementation had negatively impacted resident education, greatest among lower level residents (p < .001). This perception did not change despite interventions and perceived improvement in teleconferencing.Greater than 75% of radiologists with remote workstations reported improved wellness and lower stress levels compared to the onsite radiologists. The majority of all respondents voted to continue or expand remote work following the COVID-19 pandemic in both surveys.ConclusionsOnsite teaching is important for the education of residents, particularly for lower-level residents. However, the adoption of a hybrid model in an academic setting may prove beneficial for faculty wellness and recruitment of the next generation.     

Identifying Factors Important to Patients for Resuming Elective Imaging During the COVID-19 Pandemic

PurposeTo identify factors important to patients for their return to elective imaging during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.MethodsIn all, 249 patients had elective MRIs postponed from March 23, 2020, to April 24, 2020, because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Of these patients, 99 completed a 22-question survey about living arrangement and health care follow-up, effect of imaging postponement, safety of imaging, and factors important for elective imaging. Mann-Whitney U, Fisher’s exact, χ² tests, and logistic regression analyses were performed. Statistical significance was set to P ≤ .05 with Bonferroni correction applied.ResultsOverall, 68% of patients felt imaging postponement had no impact or a small impact on health, 68% felt it was fairly or extremely safe to obtain imaging, and 53% thought there was no difference in safety between hospital-based and outpatient locations. Patients who already had imaging performed or rescheduled were more likely to feel it was safe to get an MRI (odds ratio [OR] 3.267, P = .028) and that the hospital setting was safe (OR 3.976, P = .004). Staff friendliness was the most important factor related to an imaging center visit (95% fairly or extremely important). Use of masks by staff was the top infection prevention measure (94% fairly or extremely important). Likelihood of rescheduling imaging decreased if a short waiting time was important (OR = 0.107, P = .030).ConclusionAs patients begin to feel that it is safe to obtain imaging examinations during the COVID-19 pandemic, many factors important to their imaging experience can be considered by radiology practices when developing new strategies to conduct elective imaging.