CT and MRI Protocol Variation and Optimization at an Academic Medical Center

PurposeTo reduce CT and MRI protocol variation across a multisite radiology practice at an academic medical center so that patients with similar clinical presentations are examined the same way.Materials and MethodsThis study was performed at a large academic radiology practice performing ∼800,000 radiology examinations annually. To diminish variability across the enterprise (2 general radiology divisions; 10 subspecialty imaging divisions), a Harmonization Oversight Committee was created and tasked with ensuring patients with similar clinical presentations undergo the same CT or MRI protocol, regardless of where they are imaged. A process for decision making and conflict resolution was established, supported by the department chair. Primary outcome measure was standardization of CT and MRI protocols across all sites. Secondary outcome was percent reduction of CT and MRI protocols postharmonization.ResultsOver the 5-month harmonization process, most conflicts arose for abdominal imaging protocols because they are performed in four distinct subspecialty divisions, but all were addressed effectively through the conflict resolution process. Overall, there was a 31% reduction in the total number of CT and MRI protocols (before harmonization 481, after harmonization 331). There was significant variation in reduction of protocols per workgroup (multiple P values; range <.0001 to .9) with largest reduction in workgroups that overlapped multiple divisions.ConclusionA structured, organ system– and consensus-based quality improvement process with unambiguous decision-making and conflict resolution processes can be used to harmonize imaging protocols across complex, matrixed, multisite radiology practices so that patients with similar clinical presentations are imaged with the same imaging protocol.     

Impact of the Professional Component MPPR Policy on Interdivisional Finances in an Academic Radiology Department

PurposeThe professional component (PC) Multiple Procedure Payment Reduction (MPPR) policy reduces reimbursement for two or more imaging services rendered by the same group practice for a single patient in a single session. The purpose of this study was to analyze the impact of the PC MPPR on interdivisional finances in an academic radiology department.MethodsA retrospective analysis of Medicare collections from imaging services rendered by a single academic radiology department in a tertiary care medical center for calendar year 2014 was performed. The impact of the PC MPPR on each division was calculated as the fraction of the total departmental PC MPPR, and as the proportion of the divisional revenue.ResultsThe total decrease in Medicare collections as a result of the PC MPPR was 5.35%. The impact of the PC MPPR on each division as a fraction of the total departmental PC MPPR was: abdominal division (16.63%); thoracic division (23.56%); breast division (0.03%); musculoskeletal division (11.92%); neuroradiology division (34.40%); and noninvasive cardiovascular division (13.46%). The impact of the PC MPPR on each division as a fraction of the divisional revenue was: abdominal (2.82%); thoracic (11.83%); breast (0.66%); musculoskeletal (6.01%); neuroradiology (5.31%); and noninvasive cardiovascular (5.85%).ConclusionsThe PC MPPR differentially affects divisions within an academic radiology department. The neuroradiology and thoracic divisions of our department were the most adversely affected, owing to the high frequency of combined examinations. We speculate that this impact has implications for divisional self-sufficiency, interdivisional relationships, and resident decision making regarding subspecialty training.     

Pediatric Emergency Imaging Studies in Academic Radiology Departments: A Nationwide Survey of Staffing Practices

ObjectiveParticularly for pediatric patients presenting with acute conditions or challenging diagnoses, identifying variation in emergency radiology staffing models is essential in establishing a standard of care. We conducted a cross-sectional survey among radiology departments at academic pediatric hospitals to evaluate staffing models for providing imaging interpretation for emergency department imaging requests.MethodsWe conducted an anonymous telephone survey of academic pediatric hospitals affiliated with an accredited radiology residency program across the United States. We queried the timing, location, and experience of reporting radiologists for initial and final interpretations of emergency department imaging studies, during weekday, overnight, and weekend hours. We compared weekday with overnight, and weekday with weekend, using Fisher’s exact test and an α of 0.05.ResultsSurveying 42 of 47 freestanding academic pediatric hospitals (89%), we found statistically significant differences for initial reporting radiologist, final reporting radiologist, and final report timing between weekday and overnight. We found statistically significant differences for initial reporting radiologist and final report timing between weekday and weekend. Attending radiologist involvement in initial reports was 100% during daytime, but only 33.3% and 69.0% during overnight and weekends. For initial interpretation during overnight and weekend, 38.1% and 28.6% use resident radiologists without attending radiologists, and 28.6% and 2.4% use teleradiology. All finalized reports as soon as possible during weekdays, but only 52.4% and 78.6% during overnight and weekend.DiscussionA minority of hospitals use 24-hour in-house radiology attending radiologist coverage. During overnight periods, the majority of academic pediatric emergency departments rely on resident radiologists without attending radiologist supervision or outside teleradiology services to provide initial reports. During weekend periods, over a quarter rely on resident radiologists without attending radiologist supervision for initial reporting. This demonstrates significant variation in staffing practices at academic pediatric hospitals. Future studies should look to determine whether this variation has any impact on standard of care.     

Radiology Patient Outcome Measures: Impact of a Departmental Pay-for-Performance Initiative on Key Quality and Safety Measures

ObjectiveAssess impact of a multifaceted pay-for-performance (PFP) initiative on radiologists’ behavior regarding key quality and safety measures.MethodsThis institutional review board–approved prospective study was performed at a large, 12-division urban academic radiology department. Radiology patient outcome measures were implemented October 1, 2017, measuring report signature timeliness, critical results communication, and generation of peer-learning communications between radiologists. Subspecialty division-wide and individual radiologist targets were specified, performance was transparently communicated on an intranet dashboard updated daily, and performance was financially incentivized (5% of salary) quarterly. We compared outcomes 12 months pre- versus 12 months post-PFP implementation. Primary outcome was monthly 90th percentile time from scan completion to final report signature (CtoF). Secondary outcomes were percentage timely closed-loop communication of critical results and number of division-wide peer-learning communications. Statistical process control analysis and parallel coordinates charts were used to assess for temporal trends.ResultsIn all, 144 radiologists generated 1,255,771 reports (613,273 pre-PFP) during the study period. Monthly 90th percentile CtoF exhibited an absolute decrease of 4.4 hours (from 21.1 to 16.7 hours) and a 20.9% relative decrease post-PFP. Statistical process control analysis demonstrated significant decreases in 90th percentile CtoF post-PFP, sustained throughout the study period (P < .003). Between 95% (119 of 125, July 1, 2018, to September 30, 2018) and 98.4% (126 of 128, October 1, 2017, to December 31, 2017) of radiologists achieved >90% timely closure of critical alerts; all divisions exceeded the target of 90 peer-learning communications each quarter (range: 97-472) after January 1, 2018.DiscussionImplementation of a multifaceted PFP initiative using well-defined radiology patient outcome measures correlated with measurable improvements in radiologist behavior regarding key quality and safety parameters.     

Early Adoption of a Certainty Scale to Improve Diagnostic Certainty Communication

ObjectiveAssess the early voluntary adoption of a certainty scale to improve communicating diagnostic certainty in radiology reports.MethodsThis institutional review board–approved study was part of a multifaceted initiative to improve radiology report quality at a tertiary academic hospital. A committee comprised of radiology subspecialty division representatives worked to develop recommendations for communicating varying degrees of diagnostic certainty in radiology reports in the form of a certainty scale, made publicly available online, which specified the terms recommended and the terms to be avoided in radiology reports. Twelve radiologists voluntarily piloted the scale; use was not mandatory. We assessed proportion of recommended terms among all diagnostic certainty terms in the Impression section (primary outcome) of all reports generated by the radiologists. Certainty terms were extracted via natural language processing over a 22-week postintervention period (31,399 reports) and compared with the same 22 calendar weeks 1 year pre-intervention (24,244 reports) using Fisher’s exact test and statistical process control charts.ResultsOverall, the proportion of recommended terms significantly increased from 8,498 of 10,650 (80.0%) pre-intervention to 9,646 of 11,239 (85.8%) postintervention (P < .0001 and by statistical process control). The proportion of recommended terms significantly increased for 8 of 12 radiologists (P < .0005 each), increased insignificantly for 3 radiologists (P > .05), and decreased without significance for 1 radiologist.ConclusionDesigning and implementing a certainty scale was associated with increased voluntary use of recommended certainty terms in a small radiologist cohort. Larger-scale interventions will be needed for adoption of the scale across a broad range of radiologists.     

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.     

Radiologist Variation in the Rates of Follow-up Imaging Recommendations Made for Pulmonary Nodules

ObjectiveDetermine whether differences exist in rates of follow-up recommendations made for pulmonary nodules after accounting for multiple patient and radiologist factors.MethodsThis Institutional Review Board–approved, retrospective study was performed at an urban academic quaternary care hospital. We analyzed 142,001 chest and abdominal CT reports from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2018, from abdominal, thoracic, and emergency radiology subspecialty divisions. A previously validated natural language processing (NLP) tool identified 24,512 reports documenting pulmonary nodule(s), excluding reports NLP-positive for lung cancer. A second validated NLP tool identified reports with follow-up recommendations specifically for pulmonary nodules. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine the likelihood of pulmonary nodule follow-up recommendation. Interradiologist variability was quantified within subspecialty divisions.ResultsNLP classified 4,939 of 24,512 (20.1%) reports as having a follow-up recommendation for pulmonary nodule. Male patients comprised 45.3% (11,097) of the patient cohort; average patient age was 61.4 years (±14.1 years). The majority of reports were from outpatient studies (62.7%, 15,376 of 24,512), were chest CTs (75.9%, 18,615 of 24,512), and were interpreted by thoracic radiologists (63.7%, 15,614 of 24,512). In multivariable analysis, studies for male patients (odds ratio [OR]: 0.9 [0.8-0.9]) and abdominal CTs (OR: 0.6 [0.6-0.7] compared with chest CT) were less likely to have a pulmonary nodule follow-up recommendation. Older patients had higher rates of follow-up recommendation (OR: 1.01 for each additional year). Division-level analysis showed up to 4.3-fold difference between radiologists in the probability of making a follow-up recommendation for a pulmonary nodule.DiscussionSignificant differences exist in the probability of making a follow-up recommendation for pulmonary nodules among radiologists within the same subspecialty division.     

A Comparison of Neuroradiology and Pediatric Radiology Job Boards

PurposeACR workforce surveys have suggested progressive recovery in the number of available jobs for radiologists over the past several years. The purpose of this study was to ascertain the status of jobs available in diagnostic radiology as well as to analyze the content of the job boards of general radiology and subspecialty societies with the intent of uncovering differences in posting preferences to better steer job seekers.MethodsThe content of the online job boards hosted by the SPR, ASNR, ACR, and RSNA was evaluated on 365 consecutive days between July 1, 2016 and June 30, 2016.ResultsJob growth was demonstrated on the ACR Career Center, which peaked in the number of postings in early March. A total of 72% of the jobs posted on the SPR Career Center were academically affiliated compared to 55% on the ASNR job listings. On average, only 3% of the jobs on the ACR Career Center were for pediatric radiologists whereas 13% were designated for neuroradiologists. Fellowship postings peaked in mid-autumn for the SPR Career Center and mid-spring for the ASNR job listings. Attending-level positions remained online for 3.01 months on the SPR Career Center and 1.80 months for the ASNR job listings. Approximately half of the advertisements on the RSNA Career Connect website reflect fellowship openings.ConclusionThe online ACR Career Center showed growth in the number of radiology job openings through the 2016-2017 academic year. Subspecialty job boards in pediatric radiology and neuroradiology were more likely to advertise academically affiliated positions than the ACR Career Center.     

Wellness Program Implementation in an Academic Radiology Department: Determination of Need,Organizational Buy-in,and Outcomes

ObjectiveTo implement a multifaceted wellness program in an academic radiology department to prevent burnout and to assess initial outcomes with special focus on the challenges related to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.MethodsA wellness program was established to address institutional and personal factors of burnout. The program focused on interventions to improve efficiency of practice, provide personal and career support, and create a culture of wellness. The components of the program were designed with input from radiology faculty, and the program was financially supported by the hospital’s physician organization. A survey was performed 6 months after the initiation of the program to determine radiologist engagement and satisfaction. With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, a new survey was administered to identify needs of faculty and adjust initiatives. This study was exempt from institutional review board approval.ResultsThe majority of radiologists (79%) agreed or strongly agreed that the wellness program provided opportunities to connect with coworkers. All radiologists agreed that the program was helpful and should be continued. During the COVID-19 pandemic, 49% of physicians requested initiatives focused on well-being, emotional health, and mindfulness to support them during the crisis.ConclusionsThe implementation of a faculty wellness program in an academic radiology department addressed institutional and personal factors of burnout, allowed faculty to connect with coworkers, and was found to be helpful by all radiologists. The COVID-19 pandemic shifted needs to well-being and emotional health initiatives. Follow-up data are necessary to assess its effect on burnout reduction.     

Examining Gender Disparity in Academic Abdominal Radiology in North America

BackgroundGender disparity exists in nearly every medical specialty, particularly in leadership roles and academia. Radiology is not exempt from this phenomenon, with women making up less than a third of radiology residents in the United States (US). This can have long-lasting effects on the career progression of female radiologists. Our search did not reveal any study on gender composition in academic abdominal radiology.PurposeTo evaluate the academic productivity and career advancement of female academic abdominal radiology faculty in the United States and Canada.Materials and methodsParameters of academic achievement were measured, including the number of citations and publications, years of research, as well as H-index. Information regarding academic and leadership ranking among academic abdominal radiologists in the United States and Canada was also analyzed.ResultsIn academic abdominal radiology, there were fewer females than males (34.9% vs 65.1%; p-value 0.256). Among the female radiologists, the greatest proportion held the rank of assistant professor (40%). Female representation decreased with increasing rank. Females had a lower H-index than males (P-value = 0.0066) and significantly fewer years of research than males (P-value = 0.0243).ConclusionMale predominance in academic abdominal radiology is similar to many other medical specialties, and encompasses senior faculty rank, leadership roles and research productivity.     

Effects of Changing the Reporting System from Decentralized/Modality-Based to Centralized/Subspecialized Radiology on Radiologists,Radiologic Technicians and Referring Physicians of a Multi-Center Radiology Network

Objectives:To determine the effects of reorganizing a radiology institute from decentralized/modality-based to centralized/subspecialized radiology on radiologists, radiologic technicians, and referring physicians at a multi-center radiology network.Material and Methods:In 2017/2018 our multi-center radiology network was changed from decentralized/modality-based to centralized/subspecialized reporting. A survey was conducted among radiologists, technicians and two groups of referring physicians (main hospital and non-main hospitals). The following items were tested: Overall satisfaction, perceived quality of radiological reports, subjective productivity/efficiency, confidence of radiologists in their subspecialty, availability of radiologists and turnaround time. Two of five answering options on a 5-point Likert scale were considered to represent agreement. The Mann-Whitney-U-test served for statistical analyses in agreement before and after reorganization in each group.Results:For radiologists, a significant difference was observed in perceived quality of radiological reports 42/46 (91.3%) compared to 51/52 (98.1%; p = 0.013).For technicians, no significant differences were observed. In the group of main hospital referring physicians, significant differences were observed in overall satisfaction 129/152 (84.9%) compared to 164/174 (94.3%; p < 0.001) and in perceived quality of radiological reports 125/148 (72.8%) compared to 157/170 (92.4%; p = 0.001). In the group of non-main hospital referring physicians no significant differences were observed.Conclusion:The reorganization resulted in a significantly higher perceived quality of radiological reports for the groups of radiologists and main hospital referring physicians besides overall satisfaction for main hospital referring physicians. Specialized main hospital referring physicians value reports of specialized radiology, whereas less specialized, non-main hospital referring physicians did not experience any significant effect.     

Gender Disparity in Chest Radiology in North America

PurposeIn the current cultural climate, gender disparity is a topical and contentious issue. In academic medicine, there is an underrepresentation of female faculty in leadership positions with lower research output and fewer grant awards. We study the gender differences in faculty rank, leadership positions, and research output among chest radiologists in North America.Materials and MethodsA list of clinical faculty at radiology programs in North America was obtained using the FREIDA database and program websites. Demographic information and data pertaining to academic rank, peer-reviewed publications, and research productivity of each chest radiologist was obtained from Doximity and SCOPUS databases.ResultsFour hundred ten (281 male:129 female) academic chest radiologists were included. Females were underrepresented at senior faculty level accounting for 18.8% (n = 21) of full, 29.2% (n = 21) of associate and 40.7% (n = 61) of assistant professors. 23.1% (n = 14) of department chiefs were women. Women were more likely to occupy a faculty position in chest radiology in Canada than in US (P < 0.05). The median H-index, and numbers of publications and citations were lower for females than male faculty (P < 0.05). Male faculty had more years of experience – median of 19 years, 16.5 years for females (P < 0.05).ConclusionsGender disparity exists in chest radiology with similar male predominance in terms of senior faculty rank, leadership roles, and research productivity to other medical specialties. The observed deficiency of research and scholarly output among female chest radiologists and the paucity of aspirational female radiologists in senior academic/leadership positions are factors which perpetuate this gender disparity and contribute to persistence of the gender pay gap.     

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.     

Gender and the Radiology Workforce: Results of the 2014 ACR Workforce Survey

PurposeAs part of the 2014 ACR Human Resources Commission Workforce Survey, an assessment of the gender of the U.S. radiologist workforce was undertaken. Radiologist gender in relation to type of practice, work location, leadership roles, and full- versus part-time employment have not previously been assessed by this survey.MethodsThe survey was completed by group leaders in radiology identified through the Practice of Radiology Environment Database.ResultsThe response rate to the survey was 22%, representing 35% of all practicing radiologists. The survey found that 78% of the radiology workforce is male, and 22% female. Among the men, 58% work in private practice, and 18% in the academic/university environment; among women, percentages were 43% and 31%, respectively. Of all physician leads, 85% are men, 15% women. Of the full-time radiologists, 15% of men are practice leaders compared with 11% of women.ConclusionsFewer women than men are in private practice. More women than men practice in academic/university environments. Among part-time radiologists, there are more men than women, but significantly more women work part time than men. Women are in the minority among practice leaders.     

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

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

Magnitude of Impact,Overall and on Subspecialties,of Transitioning in Radiology from ICD-9 to ICD-10 Codes

PurposeConverting the nation’s International Classification of Diseases (ICD) diagnosis coding system, from 14,025 ICD-9 to 69,823 ICD-10 codes, is projected to have enormous financial and operational implications. We aimed to assess the magnitude of impact that this code conversion will have on radiology claims.MethodsThe most frequently billed ICD-9 diagnosis codes for 588,523 radiology claims from five hospitals and affiliated outpatient sites during a 12-month period were mapped to matching ICD-10 codes using a Medicare-endorsed tool. The code-conversion impact factor was calculated for the entire radiology system, and each individual subspecialty division.ResultsOf all ICD-9 codes, only 3,407 (24.3%) were used to report any primary diagnosis. Of all claims, 50% were billed using just 37 (0.3%) primary codes; 75% with 131 (0.5%), and 90% with 348 (2.5%). Those 348 ICD-9 codes mapped onto 2,048 ICD-10 codes (5.9-fold impact), representing just 2.9% of all ICD-10 codes. By subspecialty, the conversion impact factor varied greatly, from 1.1 for breast (11 ICD-9 to 12 ICD-10 codes) to 28.8 for musculoskeletal imaging (146 to 4,199). The community division, reflecting a general practice mix, saw a conversion impact factor of 5.8 (254 to 1,471).ConclusionsFewer than 3% of all ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes are used to report an overwhelming majority of all radiology claims. Although the number of commonly used codes will expand 5.9-fold overall, musculoskeletal imaging will experience a projected 28.8-fold explosion. Radiology practices should target their ICD educational and operational conversion efforts in an evidence-based manner.     

Integration of the Community-Based Academic Radiologist With the Academic Radiology Department: A Strategic Imperative

Academic radiology departments are expanding into the community with deployment of community-based academic radiologists (CBARs). The remote practice locations, unique workplace challenges, and limited opportunities for meaningful collegial interactions can become drivers for radiologist isolation, dissatisfaction, and burnout. Integration of CBARs with the academic radiology department with which they are affiliated is a strategic imperative to mitigate radiologist isolation and potential burnout. Committed physician leadership by the academic radiology department can support integration. Strategies to strengthen integration include bidirectional clinical coverage systems, pairing new CBARs with established academic radiologist mentors at the academic center, encouraging CBARs to serve on academic committees and collaborate on research projects with radiologists at the academic center, and recognizing CBARs for their achievements in the areas of clinical productivity, practice development, community outreach, collegiality, and innovation.     

Is There Gender Bias in Radiology Job Postings?

BackgroundWords can convey subtle cultural stereotypes and perpetuate subconscious gender biases. Wording in job advertisements that appeals to 1 gender and deters others may unintentionally skew the applicant pool and affect the early phase of the recruitment process. “Masculine” tone can lead to decreased interest among women applicants while ‘feminine’ wording may not affect a man's decision to apply for the job. In this study, we evaluated the presence and extent of subtle gender bias in job advertisements for radiology faculty positions.MethodsAll job postings for faculty radiologists were retrieved from the American College of Radiology Career Center website in July 2020. The complete job advertisement was analyzed using Gender Decoder, a publicly available web-based application, to determine number and percentage of female or male coded words and the overall tone of the ad. The job posts were also stratified by subspecialty, leadership positions and academic versus private practice environments.ResultsOf the 623 job postings reviewed, a little over half (52.0%) of job postings were feminine coded, 26.6% had a masculine tone and 21.3% had a neutral tone. Of the leadership (division director) positions, 50.0% (4/8) had a masculine tone, 37.5% had a feminine tone, and 12.5% had a neutral tone. Among various specialties, pediatric radiology had the lowest percentage of job posts with a masculine tone (10.5%) while nuclear medicine had the highest percentage (41.7%). The most commonly used feminine words were: “support,” “responsible,” “commitment” and the most common masculine words were: “competitive,” “leader,” “active.”ConclusionsMost of the imaging job advertisements were feminine coded, with masculine tone in overall 26.6% posts and neutral tone in about a fifth. Leadership posts had a higher percentage of masculine tone. Awareness of these biases is important to enable diversity in recruitment and to ensure a diverse applicant pool.     

Use of a PACS Embedded System for Communicating Radiologist to Technologist Learning Opportunities and Patient Callbacks

ObjectiveThis study aimed to determine effect of modality, care setting, and radiology subspecialty on frequency of diagnostic image quality issues identified by radiologists during image interpretation.MethodsThis Institutional Review Board-exempt retrospective study was performed 10/1/18-6/30/20 at an academic radiology practice performing 700,000+ examinations annually. A closed-loop communication tool integrated in PACS workflow enabled radiologists to alert technologists to image quality issues. Radiologists categorized communications as requiring patient callback, or as technologist learning opportunities if image quality was adequate to generate a diagnostic report. Fisher's exact test assessed impact of imaging modality, radiology subspecialty, and care setting on radiologist-identified image quality issues.Results976,915 imaging examinations were performed during the study period. Radiologists generated 1,935 technologist learning opportunities (0.20%) and 208 callbacks (0.02%). Learning opportunity rates were highest for MRI (0.60%) when compared to CT (0.26%) and radiography (0.08%) (p<0.0001). The same was true for patient callbacks (MRI 0.13%, CT 0.02%, radiography 0.0006%; p<0.0001). Outpatient examinations generated more learning opportunities (1479/637,092; 0.23%) vs. inpatient (305/200,206; 0.15%) and Emergency Department (151/139,617; 0.11%) (p<0.0001). Abdominal subspecialists were most likely to generate learning opportunities when compared to other subspecialists and cardiovascular imagers were most likely to call a patient back.ConclusionsImage quality issues identified by radiologists during the interpretation process were rare and 10 times more commonly categorized as learning opportunities not interfering with a clinically adequate report than as requiring patient callback. Further work is necessary to determine if creating learning opportunities leads to fewer patients requiring repeat examinations.     

Managing a Multisite Academic–Private Radiology Practice Reading Environment: Impact of IT Downtimes on Enterprise Efficiency

PurposeThe aim of this study was to assess whether the complex radiology IT infrastructures needed for large, geographically diversified, radiology practices are inherently stable with respect to system downtimes, and to characterize the nature of the downtimes to better understand their impact on radiology department workflow.MethodsAll radiology IT unplanned downtimes over a 12-month period in a hybrid academic–private practice that performs all interpretations in-house (no commercial “nighthawk” services) for approximately 900,000 studies per year, originating at 6 hospitals, 10 outpatient imaging centers, and multiple low-volume off-hours sites, were logged and characterized using 5 downtime metrics: duration, etiology, failure type, extent, and severity.ResultsIn 12 consecutive months, 117 unplanned downtimes occurred with the following characteristics: duration: median time = 3.5 hours with 34% <1.5 hours and 30% >12 hours; etiology: 87% were due to software malfunctions, and 13% to hardware malfunctions; failure type: 88% were transient component failures, 12% were complete component failures; extent: all sites experienced downtimes, but downtimes were always localized to a subset of sites, and no system-wide downtimes occurred; severity (impact on radiologist workflow): 47% had minimal impact, 50% moderate impact, and 3% severe impact.ConclusionsIn the complex radiology IT system that was studied, downtimes were common; they were usually a result of transient software malfunctions; the geographic extent was always localized rather than system wide; and most often, the impacts on radiologist workflow were modest.