Assessing Medical Students’ Knowledge of IR at Two American Medical Schools

PurposeTo determine if there was a difference in the level of knowledge about interventional radiology (IR) between medical students in preclinical years of training compared with medical students in clinical years of training at two medical schools and to compare awareness of IR based on the curriculum at each school: one with required radiology education and one without such a requirement.Materials and MethodsAn anonymous survey was distributed to students at two medical schools; the survey assessed knowledge of IR, knowledge of training pathways, and preferred methods to increase exposure. Responses of the preclinical and clinical groups were compared, and responses from the clinical groups at each school were compared.Results“Poor” or “fair” knowledge of IR was reported by 84% (n = 217 of 259) of preclinical students compared with 62% of clinical students (n = 110 of 177; P < .001). IR was being considered as a career by 11% of all students (15%, n = 40 of 259 preclinical; 5%, n = 9 of 177 clinical). The main reason respondents were not considering IR was “lack of knowledge” (65%, n = 136 of 210 preclinical; 20%, n = 32 of 162 clinical). Students in the clinical group at the institution with a required radiology rotation reported significantly better knowledge of IR than clinical students from the institution without a required clerkship (P = .017).ConclusionsThere are significant differences in knowledge of IR between preclinical and clinical students. Required radiology education in the clinical years does increase awareness of IR.     

Factors Influencing Patients’ Perspectives of Radiology Imaging Centers: Evaluation Using an Online Social Media Ratings Website

PurposeThe goal of this study was to use patient reviews posted on Yelp.com, an online ratings website, to identify factors most commonly associated with positive versus negative patient perceptions of radiology imaging centers across the United States.MethodsA total of 126 outpatient radiology centers from the 46 largest US cities were identified using Yelp.com; 1,009 patient reviews comprising 2,582 individual comments were evaluated. Comments were coded as pertaining to either the radiologist or other service items, and as expressing either a positive or negative opinion. Distribution of comments was compared with center ratings using Fisher’s exact test.ResultsOverall, 14% of comments were radiologist related; 86% pertained to other aspects of service quality. Radiologist-related negative comments more frequent in low-performing centers (mean rating ≤2 on 1-5 scale) than high-performing centers (rating ≥4) pertained to imaging equipment (25% versus 7%), report content (25% versus 2%), and radiologist professionalism (25% versus 2%) (P < .010). Other service-related negative comments more frequent in low-performing centers pertained to receptionist professionalism (70% versus 21%), billing (65% versus 10%), wait times (60% versus 26%), technologist professionalism (55% versus 12%), scheduling (50% versus 17%), and physical office conditions (50% versus 5%) (P < .020). Positive comments more frequent in high-performing centers included technologist professionalism (98% versus 55%), receptionist professionalism (79% versus 50%), wait times (72% versus 40%), and physical office conditions (64% versus 25%) (P < .020).ConclusionsPatients’ perception of radiology imaging centers is largely shaped by aspects of service quality. Schedulers, receptionists, technologists, and billers heavily influence patient satisfaction in radiology. Thus, radiologists must promote a service-oriented culture throughout their practice.