Self-citation: comparison between Radiología, European Radiology and Radiology for 1997–1998

Self-citation, considered as the number of times a paper cites other papers in the same journal, is an important criteria of journal quality. Our objective is to evaluate the self-citation in the official journal of the Spanish Society of Radiology (Radiología), and to compare it with the European Radiology and Radiology journals. Papers published in Radiología, European Radiology, and Radiology during 1997 and 1998 were analyzed. The Self Citation Index, considered as the ratio between self-references and total number of references per article, for the journals Radiología (SCIR), European Radiology (SCIER), and Radiology (SCIRY), were obtained and expressed as percentages. Also, the number of references to Radiología in European Radiology and Radiology papers were calculated. Stratification of the index per thematic area and article type was also performed. Mean SCIR, SCIER, and SCIRY values were compared with the ANOVA and the Student-Newman-Keuls tests. The self-citation index was statistically higher in Radiology (23.2%; p<0.0001) than in Radiología (1.8%) and European Radiology (0.8%). There were no statistically significant differences between SCIR and SCIER indexes ( p=0.25). In the stratification per thematic areas and article type, self-citation in Radiology was statistically higher ( p<0.0001), with the only exception of "Radioprotection" area ( p=0.2), to SCIR and SCIER. Although there were no statistically significant differences, by thematic areas SCIR was always larger than SCIER, with the only exception of the "Genitourinary imaging" area, and by article type SCIR also went greater to SCIER, except in review articles. Radiología, The Spanish official radiological journal, although not included in Index Medicus and its database Medline, had a larger number of self-citing than European Radiology in the period 1997-1998.     

Radiology and Social Media: Are Private Practice Radiology Groups More Social Than Academic Radiology Departments?

PurposeThis study assesses the prevalence of use of the most commonly used social media sites among private radiology groups (PRGs) and academic radiology departments (ARDs).MethodsThe 50 largest PRGs and the 50 ARDs with the highest level of funding from the National Institutes of Health were assessed for presence of a radiology-specific social media account on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Pinterest, YouTube, and LinkedIn. Measures of organizational activity and end-user activity were collected, including the number of posts and followers, as appropriate; between-group comparisons were performed.ResultsPRGs adopted Facebook 12 months earlier (P = .02) and Twitter 18 months earlier (P = .02) than did ARDs. A total of 76% of PRGs maintained ≥1 account on the social media sites included in the study, compared with 28% of ARDs (P < .0001). The prevalence of having an account on the social media sites for PRGs was: Facebook, 66%; LinkedIn, 56%; Twitter, 42%; YouTube, 20%; Pinterest, 4%; and Instagram, 2%. The prevalence of radiology-specific social media accounts for ARDs was: Facebook, 18%; LinkedIn, 0%; Twitter, 24%; YouTube, 6%; Pinterest, 0%; and Instagram, 0%. There was no significant difference between ARDs and PRGs in measures of end-user or organizational activity on Facebook or Twitter.ConclusionsUse of social media in health care is emerging as mainstream, with PRGs being early adopters of Facebook and Twitter in comparison with ARDs. Competitive environments and institutional policies may be strong factors that influence how social media is used by radiologists at the group and department levels.     

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.     

Interprofessional Education and the Diagnostic Radiography curriculum: Students’ perceived value of a case-based,whole day activity

IntroductionThis study aimed to examine Diagnostic Radiography (DR) students’ perceptions and attitudes towards the Health Collaboration Challenge (HCC), as an interprofessional learning opportunity.MethodsDR students participated in the HCC, an annual intensive interprofessional collaboration and assessment activity involving case-based learning. Students' attitudes towards Interprofessional Education (IPE) were measured using a modified version of the Interprofessional Socialisation and Valuing Scale (ISVS-21) and a bespoke questionnaire with items relating to the HCC. Subsequent focus groups explored students’ experience of IPE within the HCC context.ResultsSurvey results (n = 30) suggested a mostly positive attitude towards IPE alongside other health care students, acknowledging the value of interprofessional teams in patient health care. Qualitative themes from focus group participants (n = 8) revealed that DR students, while appreciating the value of shared-decision making, found the HCC assessment distracting. Challenges included the intensive nature of the HCC, roles that DR students undertook in addressing assessment criteria, case complexity and opportunities for DR students to showcase their knowledge.ConclusionResults suggest that the intensive and assessable nature of the HCC can overshadow the value of IPE for DR students, and immersive or staggered approaches to IPE could better align with DR professionals’ unique role within the patient care spectrum.Implications for practiceRevised IPE models for DR students could include a more immersive environment, conducted over a longer period of time, with meetings at semi-regular intervals to promote an interprofessional-focus over a task-focus approach.