Recovery of outpatient imaging utilization during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic

ObjectiveDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, Radiology practices experienced marked reductions in outpatient imaging volumes. Our purpose was to evaluate the timing, rate, and degree of recovery of outpatient imaging during the first wave of the pandemic. We also sought to ascertain the relationship of outpatient imaging recovery to the incidence of COVID-19 cases.MethodsRetrospective study of outpatient imaging volumes in a large healthcare system was performed from January 1, 2019-August 25, 2020. Dataset was split to compare Pre-COVID (weeks 1–9), Peak-COVID (weeks 10–15) and Recovery-COVID (weeks 16–34) periods. Chi-square and Independent-samples t-tests compared weekly outpatient imaging volumes in 2020 and 2019. Regression analyses assessed the rate of decline and recovery in Peak-COVID and Recovery-COVID periods, respectively.ResultsTotal outpatient imaging volume in 2020 (weeks 1–34) was 327,738 exams, compared to 440,314 in 2019. The 2020 mean weekly imaging volumes were significantly decreased in Peak-COVID (p = 0.0148) and Recovery-COVID (p = 0.0003) periods. Mean weekly decline rate was −2580 exams/week and recovery rate was +617 exams/week. The 2020 Post-COVID (weeks 10–34) period had an average decrease of 36.5% (4813.4/13,178.6) imaging exams/week and total estimated decrease of 120,335 exams. Significant inverse correlation (−0.8338, p < 0.0001) was seen between positive-tested COVID-19 cases and imaging utilization with 1-week lag during Post-COVID (weeks 10–34) period.ConclusionRecovery of outpatient imaging volume during the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic showed a gradual return to pre-pandemic levels over the course of 3–4 months. The rate of imaging utilization was inversely associated with new positive-tested COVID-19 cases with a 1-week lag.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Imaging Utilization During the COVID-19 Pandemic Highlights Socioeconomic Health Disparities

ObjectiveThe devastating impact from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic highlights long-standing socioeconomic health disparities in the United States. The purpose of this study was to evaluate socioeconomic factors related to imaging utilization during the pandemic.MethodsRetrospective review of consecutive imaging examinations was performed from January 1, 2019, to May 31, 2020, across all service locations (inpatient, emergency, outpatient). Patient level data were provided for socioeconomic factors (age, sex, race, insurance status, residential zip code). Residential zip code was used to assign median income level. The weekly total imaging volumes in 2020 and 2019 were plotted from January 1 to May 31 stratified by socioeconomic factors to demonstrate the trends during the pre-COVID-19 (January 1 to February 28) and post-COVID-19 (March 1 to May 31) periods. Independent-samples t tests were used to statistically compare the 2020 and 2019 socioeconomic groups.ResultsCompared with 2019, the 2020 total imaging volume in the post-COVID-19 period revealed statistically significant increased imaging utilization in patients who are aged 60 to 79 years (P = .0025), are male (P < .0001), are non-White (Black, Asian, other, unknown; P < .05), are covered by Medicaid or uninsured (P < .05), and have income below $80,000 (P < .05). However, there was a significant decrease in imaging utilization among patients who are younger (<18 years old; P < .0001), are female (P < .0001), are White (P = .0003), are commercially insured (P < .0001), and have income ≥$80,000 (P < .05).DiscussionDuring the pandemic, there was a significant change in imaging utilization varying by socioeconomic factors, consistent with the known health disparities observed in the prevalence of COVID-19. These findings could have significant implications in directing utilization of resources during the pandemic and subsequent recovery.     

Trends in Academic Productivity Among Radiologists During the COVID-19 Pandemic

PurposeThere is a scarcity of literature examining changes in radiologist research productivity during the COVID-19 pandemic. The current study aimed to investigate changes in academic productivity as measured by publication volume before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsThis single-center, retrospective cohort study included the publication data of 216 researchers consisting of associate professors, assistant professors, and professors of radiology. Wilcoxon’s signed-rank test was used to identify changes in publication volume between the 1-year-long defined prepandemic period (publications between May 1, 2019, and April 30, 2020) and COVID-19 pandemic period (May 1, 2020, to April 30, 2021).ResultsThere was a significantly increased mean annual volume of publications in the pandemic period (5.98, SD = 7.28) compared with the prepandemic period (4.98, SD = 5.53) (z = ?2.819, P = .005). Subset analysis demonstrated a similar (17.4%) increase in publication volume for male researchers when comparing the mean annual prepandemic publications (5.10, SD = 5.79) compared with the pandemic period (5.99, SD = 7.60) (z = ?2.369, P = .018). No statistically significant changes were found in similar analyses with the female subset.DiscussionSignificant increases in radiologist publication volume were found during the COVID-19 pandemic compared with the year before. Changes may reflect an overall increase in academic productivity in response to clinical and imaging volume ramp down.     

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.     

Acute Appendicitis During Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Changes in Clinical Presentation and CT Findings

BackgroundQuarantine and stay-at-home orders are strategies that many countries used during the acute pandemic period of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) to prevent disease dissemination, health system overload, and mortality. However, there are concerns that patients did not seek necessary health care because of these mandates.PurposeTo evaluate the differences in the clinical presentation of acute appendicitis and CT findings related to these cases between the COVID-19 acute pandemic period and nonpandemic period.Materials and MethodsA retrospective observational study was performed to compare the acute pandemic period (March 23, 2020, to May 4, 2020) versus the same period the year before (March 23, 2019, to May 4, 2019). The proportion of appendicitis diagnosed by CT and level of severity of the disease were reviewed in each case. Univariate and bivariate analyses were performed to identify significant differences between the two groups.ResultsA total of 196 abdominal CT scans performed due to suspected acute appendicitis were evaluated: 55 from the acute pandemic period and 141 from the nonpandemic period. The proportion of acute appendicitis diagnosed by abdominal CT was higher in the acute pandemic period versus the nonpandemic period: 45.5% versus 29.8% (P = .038). The severity of the diagnosed appendicitis was higher during the acute pandemic period: 92% versus 57.1% (P = .003).ConclusionDuring the acute COVID-19 pandemic period, fewer patients presented with acute appendicitis to the emergency room, and those who did presented at a more severe stage of the disease.     

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.     

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on clinical radiography practice in low resource settings: The Ghanaian radiographers’ perspective

IntroductionThe COVID-19 pandemic has altered the professional practice of all healthcare workers, including radiographers. In the pandemic, clinical practice of radiographers was centred mostly on chest imaging of COVID-19 patients and radiotherapy treatment care delivery to those with cancer. This study aimed to assess the radiographers’ perspective on the impact of the pandemic on their wellbeing and imaging service delivery in Ghana.MethodsA cross-sectional survey of practising radiographers in Ghana was conducted online from March 26th to May 6th, 2020. A previously validated questionnaire that sought information regarding demographics, general perspectives on personal and professional impact of the pandemic was used as the research instrument. Data obtained was analysed using Microsoft Excel® 2016.ResultsA response rate of 57.3% (134/234) was obtained. Of the respondents, 75.4% (n = 101) reported to have started experiencing high levels of workplace-related stress after the outbreak. Three-quarters (n = 98, 73.1%) of respondents reported limited access to any form of psychosocial support systems at work during the study period. Half (n = 67, 50%) of the respondents reported a decline in general workload during the study period while only a minority (n = 18, 13.4%) reported an increase in workload due to COVID-19 cases.ConclusionThis national survey indicated that majority of the workforce started experiencing coronavirus-specific workplace-related stress after the outbreak. Albeit speculative, low patient confidence and fear of contracting the COVID-19 infection on hospital attendance contributed to the decline in general workload during the study period.Implications for practiceIn order to mitigate the burden of workplace-related stress on frontline workers, including radiographers, and in keeping to standard practices for staff mental wellbeing and patient safety, institutional support structures are necessary in similar future pandemics.     

Increased per-patient imaging utilization in an emergency department setting during COVID-19

IntroductionCOVID-19 has resulted in decreases in absolute imaging volumes, however imaging utilization on a per-patient basis has not been reported. Here we compare per-patient imaging utilization, characterized by imaging studies and work relative value units (wRVUs), in an emergency department (ED) during a COVID-19 surge to the same period in 2019.MethodsThis retrospective study included patients presenting to the ED from April 1–May 1, 2020 and 2019. Patients were stratified into three primary subgroups: all patients (n = 9580, n = 5686), patients presenting with respiratory complaints (n = 1373, n = 2193), and patients presenting without respiratory complaints (n = 8207, n = 3493). The primary outcome was imaging studies/patient and wRVU/patient. Secondary analysis was by disposition and COVID status. Comparisons were via the Wilcoxon rank-sum or Chi-squared tests.ResultsThe total patients, imaging exams, and wRVUs during the 2020 and 2019 periods were 5686 and 9580 (−41%), 6624 and 8765 (−24%), and 4988 and 7818 (−36%), respectively, and the percentage patients receiving any imaging was 67% and 51%, respectively (p < .0001). In 2020 there was a 170% relative increase in patients presenting with respiratory complaints. In 2020, patients without respiratory complaints generated 24% more wRVU/patient (p < .0001) and 33% more studies/patient (p < .0001), highlighted by 38% more CTs/patient.ConclusionWe report increased per-patient imaging utilization in an emergency department during COVID-19, particularly in patients without respiratory complaints.     

Patients characteristics related to screening mammography cancellation and rescheduling rates during the COVID-19 pandemic

PurposeTo identify patient characteristics associated with screening mammography cancellations and rescheduling during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsScheduled screening mammograms during three time periods were retrospectively reviewed: state-mandated shutdown (3/17/2020-6/16/2020) during which screening mammography was cancelled, a period of 2 months immediately after screening mammography resumed (6/17/2020-8/16/2020), and a representative period prior to COVID-19 (6/17/2019-8/16/2019). Relative risk of cancellation before COVID-19 and after reopening was compared for age, race/ethnicity, insurance, history of chronic disease, and exam location, controlling for other collected variables. Risk of failure to reschedule was similarly compared between all 3 time periods.ResultsOverall cancellation rate after reopening was higher than before shutdown (7663/16595, 46% vs 5807/15792, 37%; p < 0.001). Relative risk of cancellation after reopening increased with age (1.20 vs 1.27 vs 1.36 for ages at 25th, 50th, and 75th quartile or 53, 61, and 70 years, respectively, p < 0.001). Relative risk of cancellation was also higher among Medicare patients (1.41) compared to Medicaid and those with other providers (1.26 and 1.21, respectively, p < 0.001) and non-whites compared to whites (1.34 vs 1.25, p = 0.03). Rescheduling rate during shutdown was higher than before COVID-19 and after reopening for all patients (10,658/13593, 78%, 3569/5807, 61%, and 4243/7663, respectively, 55%, p < 0.001). Relative risk of failure to reschedule missed mammogram was higher in hospitals compared to outpatient settings both during shutdown and after reopening (0.62 vs 0.54, p = 0.005 and 1.29 vs 1.03, p < 0.001, respectively).ConclusionMinority race/ethnicity, Medicare insurance, and advanced age were associated with increased risk of screening mammogram cancellation during COVID-19.     

Creating a Radiology Call Center Hotline and “HOT” Sites: Centralizing Radiology Questions and Cohorting Out-patient Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic

IntroductionAmidst COVID-19 crisis, confusion exists over current radiology operations due to influx of new data and new protocols. In order to decrease confusion and reduce imaging facility related COVID-19 transmissions, we created a dedicated radiology COVID-19 call center and dedicated out-patient COVID-19 imaging sites (referred to “HOT” sites).Materials and MethodsWe created a central radiology call center hotline, staffed by our radiology technologists, to answer all radiology questions related to COVID-19 and help with scheduling exams. All out-patient x-ray exams became mandatory to schedule through the call center so proper COVID-19 screening could occur. If positive for COVID-19 symptoms, they are sent to “HOT” sites. Various statistical analyses were performed.ResultsA total of 2548 calls were received over 7 weeks with linear increase in calls during this period (R 2 = 0.17, P = 0.003). Most common reasons for calling were related to scheduling (n = 2336, 92%) and radiology operations (n = 145, 6%). At our main “HOT” site, from a total of 371 separate patient encounters by date of study, 72 patient encounters (19%) were COVID-19 positive at time of exam.DiscussionThis project provides efficient and reassuring radiology operations during an emergency situation by providing a single reliable point of contact and a source of truth for all facets of radiology. In doing so, we facilitate high quality patient centered care while protecting the health of our patients and staff.     

COVID-19 pandemic impacts physical activity levels and sedentary time but not sleep quality in young badminton athletes

Purpose

Regular physical activity is a good strategy to maintain the health of athletes, and prevent pain and decreased joint flexibility during the pandemic. On the other hand, higher sedentary time during the pandemic period can have deleterious effects. The objective of this study was to compare physical activity levels, sedentary time, and sleep parameters during the pre-COVID period and the COVID-19 pandemic period in young badminton athletes.

Methods

Fifteen young badminton athletes were evaluated during a pre-COVID period (July 2019) and during the COVID-19 period (July 2020). Sleep parameters, physical activity level, and sedentary time were measured using a tri-axial accelerometer. Participants wore the accelerometer on their dominant wrist for 7 days consecutively. In addition, the average of each sleep parameter [time in bed and total sleep time in hours per day, sleep efficiency (%), wake after sleep onset (WASO, total per day), and sleep latency (minutes per day)] was reported over the 7-day period.

Results

Athletes presented increased sedentary time (pre-COVID?=?7.0?±?1.1 vs.COVID-19?=?8.9?±?1.9 h/day, p?=?0.004, d?=?1.30) and significant decreases in the total PA observed in counts per day (pre-COVID?=?2,967,064.4?±?671,544.1 vs. COVID-19?=?1,868,210.2?±?449,768.4 counts/day, p?=?0.001, d?=?1.99), time in vigorous PA (pre-COVID?=?7.7?±?0.9 vs. COVID-19?=?6.1?±?1.2 h/day, p?=?0.001, d?=?1.56), and time in moderate-to-vigorous PA (pre-COVID?=?8.1?±?0.9 vs. COVID-19?=?6.5?±?1.3 h/day, p?=?0.001, d?=?1.48). There were no significant differences for time in light and moderate PA or in sleep parameters (p?>?0.05).

Conclusion

Young badminton athletes presented increased sedentary time, and decreased total physical activity, time in MVPA, and time in vigorous activities during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to the pre-COVID period, however, there were no significant differences in sleep parameters.

     

Characterization of the #Radiology Twitter Conversation During the Global COVID-19 Pandemic

ObjectiveTo assess the #Radiology conversation on Twitter social media platform during the COVID-19 pandemic.Materials and MethodsFrom February 1 to December 31, 2020, all tweets with a #Radiology hashtag were identified using the healthcare social media analytics tool, Symplur Signals. Data collected included number of tweets, retweets, impressions, links, and user characteristics. Data were stratified by the presence of a COVID-19-related keyword, and a social media network analysis was further performed.ResultsOf the 68,172 tweets, 10,093 contained COVID-19 content from 2809 users generating 65,513,669 impressions. More tweets with COVID-19 content contained links than without (P < 0.01). Network analysis demonstrated most users were physicians (48.10%), authoring the most tweets (40.38%), using the most mentions (32.15%), and retweeting the most (51.45%). The most impressions, however, were by healthcare organizations not providing clinical care (20,235,547 impressions, 30.89%). Users came from 80 countries, most from the United States (29.3%) and the United Kingdom (8.69%). During early March, COVID-19 dominated the #Radiology conversation, making up 54.67% of tweets the week of March 14 and 64.74% of impressions the week of March 21 compared to 13.97% of tweets and 16.76% of impressions in the remainder of the study period (P < 0.01).There was an influx of new users to the #Radiology conversation during this time period with more users tweeting about COVID-19 than not (P < 0.01).ConclusionDiscussion of COVID-19 in the #Radiology community increased significantly during the early weeks of the pandemic. Real time sharing and collaboration proved a useful tool when rapid information dissemination was needed to manage an emerging pathogen.     

The impact of COVID-19 upon student radiographers and clinical training

IntroductionTo investigate student clinical placement concerns and opinions, during the initial COVID-19 pandemic outbreak and to inform educational institution support planning.MethodsBetween mid-June to mid-July 2020, educational institutions from 12 countries were invited to participate in an online survey designed to gain student radiographer opinion from a wide geographical spread and countries with varying levels of COVID-19 cases.Results1277 respondents participated, of these 592 had completed clinical placements during January to June 2020. Accommodation and cohabiting risks were identified as challenging, as was isolation from family, travel to clinical placements, and to a lesser extent childcare. Students stated they had been affected by the feeling of isolation and concerns about the virus whilst on placement. Overall 35.4% of all respondents were ‘Not at all worried’ about being a radiographer, however, 64.6% expressed varying levels of concern and individual domestic or health situations significantly impacted responses (p ≤ 0.05). Year 4 students and recent graduates were significantly more likely to be ‘Not worried at all’ compared to Year 2 and 3 students (p ≤ 0.05). The need for improved communication regarding clinical placements scheduling was identified as almost 50% of students on clinical placements between January to June 2020 identified the completion of assessments as challenging. Furthermore, only 66% of respondents with COVID-19 imaging experience stated being confident with personal protective equipment (PPE) use.ConclusionStudent radiographers identified key challenges which require consideration to ensure appropriate measures are in place to support their ongoing needs. Importantly PPE training is required before placement regardless of prior COVID-19 imaging experience.Implications for practiceAs the next academic year commences, the study findings identify important matters to be considered by education institutions with responsibility for Radiography training and as students commence clinical placements during the on-going global COVID-19 pandemic.     

Impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak on radiology research: An Italian survey

PurposeTo understand how COVID-19 pandemic has changed radiology research in Italy.MethodsA questionnaire (n = 19 questions) was sent to all members of the Italian Society of Radiology two months after the first Italian national lockdown was lifted.ResultsA total of 327 Italian radiologists took part in the survey (mean age: 49 ± 12 years). After national lockdown, the working-flow came back to normal in the vast majority of cases (285/327, 87.2%). Participants reported that a total of 462 radiological trials were recruiting patients at their institutions prior to COVID-19 outbreak, of which 332 (71.9%) were stopped during the emergency. On the other hand, 252 radiological trials have been started during the pandemic, of which 156 were non-COVID-19 trials (61.9%) and 96 were focused on COVID-19 patients (38.2%). The majority of radiologists surveyed (61.5%) do not conduct research. Of the radiologists who carried on research activities, participants reported a significant increase of the number of hours per week spent for research purposes during national lockdown (mean 4.5 ± 8.9 h during lockdown vs. 3.3 ± 6.8 h before lockdown; p = .046), followed by a significant drop after the lockdown was lifted (3.2 ± 6.5 h per week, p = .035). During national lockdown, 15.6% of participants started new review articles and completed old papers, 14.1% completed old works, and 8.9% started new review articles. Ninety-six surveyed radiologists (29.3%) declared to have submitted at least one article during COVID-19 emergency.ConclusionThis study shows the need to support radiology research in challenging scenarios like COVID-19 emergency.     

Quantifying Impact of Disruption to Radiology Education During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Implications for Future Training

PurposeThe aim of this study was to assess the impact on radiology resident education due to the COVID-19 pandemic in order to inform future educational planning.MethodsDuring a 10-week study period from March 16 to May 22, 2020, changes to educational block-weeks (BW) of first through fourth year residents (R1-4) were documented as disrupted in the setting of the COVID-19 pandemic. The first 5 weeks and the second 5 weeks were evaluated separately for temporal differences. Overall and mean disrupted BW per resident were documented. Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used to assess pairwise differences between classes with Bonferroni-adjusted P-values, as well as differences in the early versus later phase of the pandemic.ResultsOf 373 BW, 56.6% were assigned to virtual curriculum, 39.4% radiology clinical duties, 2.9% illness, and 1.1% reassignment. Scheduling intervention affected 6.2 ± 2.3 (range 1-10) mean BW per resident over the 10-week study period. The R3 class experienced the largest disruption, greater than the R2 classes, and statistically significantly more than the R1 and R4 classes (both P < 0.05). The second half of the pandemic caused statistically significantly more schedule disruptions than the first half (P = 0.009).DiscussionThe impact of COVID-19 pandemic varied by residency class year, with the largest disruption of the R3 class and the least disruption of the R4 class. To optimize future educational opportunities, shifting to a competency-based education paradigm may help to achieve proficiency without extending the length of the training program.