Assessment of US Radiology Residency Program Websites in the COVID-19 Era

ObjectiveTo provide an updated evaluation of radiology residency program websites in light of virtual interviewing during the COVID-19 pandemic and encourage programs to improve the quality of their online website presence.MethodsWe evaluated the websites of 197 US radiology residency programs between November and December 2021 for the presence or absence of 30 metrics. The metrics chosen are those considered important by applicants when choosing a program and have been used in other similar papers.ResultsOf the 197 programs, 192 (97.5%) had working websites. The average radiology residency website had 16 of 30 (54%) metrics listed on their websites. Five programs did not have accessible websites and were not included in the analysis. The most comprehensive website had 29 of 30 (97%) of metrics listed and the least comprehensive website had 2 of 30 (7%). There is a statistically significant difference in website comprehensiveness between top 20 and non–top 20 radiology program websites.ConclusionAlthough radiology residency program websites have generally become more comprehensive over time, there is still room for improvement, especially in times of virtual interviews when residency applicants are becoming more and more reliant on program websites to gain essential information about a program. Some key areas to include are diversity and inclusion initiatives, resident wellness, applicant information, program benefits, and showcase of people in the program.     

Global Radiology Training Prevalence Among Radiology Residency Programs

ObjectiveGlobal Radiology aims to enhance access to medical imaging services and education, worldwide. To date, few reports have evaluated Global Radiology Training (GRT) in radiology residency programs. Here, we examined how radiology residency programs perceive and incorporate GRT into their curriculum, and how this information is promoted online.MethodsTwo methods were used to examine the current state of GRT. First, radiology residency program directors (identified via the Association of Program Directors in Radiology) were surveyed on topics including: Electives, institutional partnerships, resident and faculty involvement, inquiry by prospective residents, and barriers to implementation. Second, radiology residency program websites (n = 193) were examined for existing GRT on the programs’ publicly available webpages.ResultsThere were 62 survey responses (response rate of 19%). Thirty-eight percent (24/62) of residency programs offered a Global Radiology elective to their residents within the past academic year and 27% (17/62) of programs have active affiliations with medical institutions outside of the United States. Eighty-four percent of program directors (52/62) received questions from residency applicants regarding opportunities to participate in Global Radiology. Furthermore, only 13% (26/193) of all radiology residency programs listed at least one GRT elective on their webpage.DiscussionGRT in radiology residency is more widely available than previously reported and has been underrepresented on residency program websites. In the present survey, the majority of radiology residency program directors reported that radiology is an important component of Global Health, one-third of whom have already incorporated the subject into their curriculum. However, most common barriers to GRT include, perceived lack of time in the curriculum and lack of faculty interest. The high prevalence of inquiry from residency program applicants about GRT suggests that it may be a notable factor for applicants during the ranking process. Programs build up GRT may choose to share related information seeking to may choose to emphasize work in Global Radiology on their program webpages.     

Multidisciplinary Approach in Teaching Diagnostic Radiology to Medical Students: The Development,Implementation, and Evaluation of a Virtual Educational Model

PurposeThe aim of this study was to develop, implement, and evaluate the effectiveness of an online multidisciplinary approach for teaching diagnostic radiology to medical students.MethodsAn online 10-session case-based learning course was designed and taught by a multidisciplinary team of radiologists, surgeons, and internists. Session topics included common clinical case scenarios for different systems and were hosted on a videoconferencing platform. Students from six medical schools across Texas enrolled in the course. The effectiveness of each session was evaluated using a pretest-posttest design. Students completed a final survey after the course to evaluate their experience.ResultsAn average of 108 attended the live sessions, with attendance peaking at 220. On average, 75 students completed both the pretest and posttest of each session. Posttest scores were an average of 46% higher than pretest scores. A total of 109 students completed the final survey; more than 90% of participants agreed that the program was relevant, that its multidisciplinary approach was valuable, and that it increased their knowledge of imaging as a diagnostic tool. Seventy-four percent said that the program increased their interest in radiology. Almost all participants said that the topics presented were thought to be “excellent and clinically important to learn” by most of the students (70%). Participants reported increased confidence in basic radiology skills after completion of the program.ConclusionsAn online multidisciplinary approach can be feasibly implemented to address the radiology education needs of a large number of medical students across a group of medical schools.     

An Assessment of Radiology Residency Program Websites

PurposeWhen prospective radiology residents decide where to apply to residency, many will use the Internet as a resource to garner information. Therefore, it is important for residency programs to produce and maintain an informative and comprehensive website. Here, we review 179 radiology residency program websites for 19 criteria including various aspects related to the residency application process, benefits, didactics, research, clinical training, and faculty leadership.MethodsWe evaluated 179 radiology residency program websites for the inclusion of 19 different criteria. Criteria for information not available directly on the website and links with no information were considered not present.ResultsOnly 12 of the 179 (6.7%) program websites had at least 80% of the 19 criteria. In addition, 41 programs (23%) had less than 50% of the criteria listed on their websites. Websites ranged from having 16% of the criteria to as much as 95%.ConclusionAlthough previous studies have shown that prospective radiology resident applicants are influenced by intangibles like current resident satisfaction and academic reputation, they have also shown that applicants are influenced by the educational curriculum, clinical training, program resources, research opportunities, and quality of faculty. Therefore, it is imperative to provide online resources for prospective candidates in an attempt for residency programs to remain competitive in recruiting high-quality US medical student graduates. These findings suggest there is room for improving the comprehensiveness of information provided on radiology residency program websites.     

Online Hide and Seek: Allopathic US Medical Schools’ Radiology Education Virtual Presence

Rationale and ObjectivesTo highlight radiology's merits and boost appeal to medical students in the digital era, it is increasingly important for radiology departments to be readily accessible to medical students. We report the results of a multivariate analysis of the virtual presence of radiology medical student education of 152 allopathic United States (US) medical schools, the first report of its kind to the authors’ knowledge. We detail eight elements to include when optimizing a radiology medical student education website.MethodsIn August 2020, the Department of Radiology websites at 152 allopathic US medical schools were assessed for the presence of a medical student radiology education website and accessibility of collated information about preclinical and clinical course offerings, radiology interest groups, and outreach initiatives in the form of student radiology mentorship, shadowing, and research opportunities.Results65.1% (99/152) of allopathic US medical schools’ radiology departments have a dedicated medical student radiology education website, one of which was excluded from further review due to password protected content. 58.2% (57/98) of departmental websites include information about preclinical radiology coursework and 90.8% (89/98) of departments provide information about clinical courses. Details about interest groups were found on 26.5% (26/98) of departmental websites. Information about mentorship and shadowing was identified on less than half of departmental websites. 51% (50/98) of Department of Radiology websites provide information about research opportunities for students.ConclusionsThis study demonstrates that the majority of allopathic US medical schools’ radiology departments lack full information of relevance to medical students. To engage today's and tomorrow's medical learners digitally, there is opportunity and need to improve the online availability of information about preclinical and clinical radiology courses, student interest groups, shadowing opportunities, student mentorship, and student research. We detail eight elements to include when optimizing a radiology medical student education website. In most instances, this can be accomplished by revising an existing radiology department website in a manner that engages, educates, and recruits medical students. As a specialty, radiology must expand our digital footprint to reach tomorrow's colleagues and leaders.     

First-Year Radiology Residents Teaching Anatomy to First-Year Medical Students: A Symbiotic Relationship

ObjectivesOur institution has developed an educational program in which first-year radiology residents teach first-year medical students during gross anatomy laboratory sessions. The purpose of this study is to assess the impact of this program on medical student knowledge and perceptions of radiology, and on resident attitudes toward teaching.Materials and MethodsFirst-year resident pairs taught small groups of medical students during weekly 15-minute interactive sessions, and were evaluated on teaching skills by senior residents. A survey about attitudes toward radiology and a knowledge quiz were sent to the medical students, and a survey about attitudes toward teaching was sent to the first-year radiology residents, both pre-course and post-course.ResultsStudents’ radiology knowledge significantly increased between the pre-course and post-course survey across all categories tested (P < 0.001). Additionally, there were significant improvements in terms of students’ confidence in radiologic anatomy skills, perceived importance of radiology for medical training, familiarity with the field of radiology, and perception that radiologists are friendly (P < 0.001). Radiology residents felt more confident in their teaching proficiency (P < 0.001) by the conclusion of the course.ConclusionsResident-led small-group teaching sessions during anatomy laboratory are mutually beneficial for medical students and radiology residents. The program also allows radiology residents to be exposed early on in residency to teaching and academic medicine.     

Demographic Trends in Female Interventional Radiology Trainees With the Advent of the Integrated Interventional Radiology Residency

ObjectiveExamine changes in gender representation in the interventional radiology (IR) training pool since the advent of the integrated IR residency in 2015 to 2020.MethodsElectronic Residency Application Service and ACGME Data Resource Book records from 2015 to 2020 were reviewed for integrated IR residency and vascular and interventional radiology (VIR) fellowship applicant data and active IR resident and VIR fellow data, respectively. The Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR) 2018 registry data were reviewed for SIR membership data. Two-tailed Fisher’s exact tests and χ² analyses were used to compare trainees between application cycles.ResultsIn the 2017 application cycle, 23% (247 of 1,062) of integrated IR residency applicants were female, with similar interest in the 2018, 2019, and 2020 cycles (χ²[3, n = 2,863] = 5.1, P = .17). In comparison, female VIR fellowship applicants were 12% from 2017 to 2020. Female integrated IR residents represented 13% to 18% of all integrated IR residents in the 2016 to 2020 academic years compared with the period before the integrated IR residency when female IR trainees represented 8% (23 of 275) of all IR trainees in 2015 to 2016 (P = .0002). Although in 2018, the total active SIR female membership was 9% (319 of 3,622), the female resident membership was 17% (131 of 793), and the female medical student membership was 25% (389 of 1,573).DiscussionWith the advent of the integrated IR residency, there is an increasing female constituency, at the medical student, IR applicant, and IR resident levels, with more than a doubling of female IR trainees, portending a continued reduction in the IR gender disparity in the future.     

Design,Implementation, and Evaluation of a Diversity Program for Radiology

Rationale and ObjectivesDiagnostic radiology training programs are less diverse than graduating US medical school classes and the patient populations they serve. Inclusion of physicians who are underrepresented minorities in medicine (URMM) can strengthen the profession and help to meet the needs of an increasingly diverse population. Our Department of Radiology developed and implemented a plan to increase the number of URMMs in our residency applicant pool and residency training program.Materials and MethodsWe designed a recruitment strategy to diversify the radiology residency applicant pool. This included website development, advertising, early exposure opportunities, travel to predominantly minority institutions and national meetings, and mentoring URMM medical students. We implemented parallel activities to increase the number of URMMs in our residency program. These included holistic screening tools for residency application review, a diverse residency recruitment committee, a welcome environment for visiting candidates, and “Second Look Weekend” visits for talented candidates. Primary outcomes measured include change in percentages of URMM applicants in our applicant pool and URMM residents in our residency program.ResultsThe percentage of URMM radiology residency applicants increased from 7.5% (42 of 556) of the total applicant pool in the 2012 to 2013 recruitment year to 12.6% (98 of 777) in the 2017 to 2018 recruitment year (P = .001). URMM radiology residency representation increased from 0% (0 of 32) in the 2013 to 2014 academic year to 20% (6 of 30) in the 2018 to 2019 academic year (P = .01).ConclusionAn intentional, strategic diversity program can diversify an institution’s residency applicant pool and increase representation of URMMs in a diagnostic radiology residency program.     

Factors that affect National Resident Matching Program rankings of medical students applying for radiology residency

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: A study was performed to determine which factors most influence the program rank lists of U.S. medical students applying for radiology residency and which sources of information about residency programs these medical students value most highly. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Questionnaires were mailed to the 516 U.S. medical students who applied to the authors' radiology residency program in the 2001 National Resident Matching Program match. Respondents were asked to evaluate 23 factors that may have affected their rank lists, on a five-point Likert scale. For data interpretation, factors were categorized as being either within, somewhat within, or outside the control of the program director. Respondents were also asked to evaluate eight potential sources of information about residency programs. RESULTS: The response rate was 23.3% (120 of 516). The three most important factors affecting rank lists were the perceived happiness of current residents within the program, the geographic location of the program, and the academic reputation of the department. Four of the five factors that scored most highly were judged to be outside the program director's control. The most important sources of information were the interview day and personal interactions with residents currently in the program. Program Web sites were rated more highly than the written materials provided. CONCLUSION: Medical students applying for radiology residency use many sources of information and weigh many factors in making their program rank lists. Many of the most influential factors are outside the direct control of the program director.     

Tales of Mentoring in Radiology: The Experience of Residents and Mentors at a Single Academic Program

PurposeTo investigate the utility of mentoring groups in radiology residency.MethodsFive assistant professors of Radiology and 20 radiology residents were divided into 5 groups. One resident from each academic year was randomly paired with a mentor group. Three 1-hour group mentoring sessions took place over the year. Upon completion of the project an anonymous Quality Improvement survey of 20 questions were sent out to participants to assess the utility of these mentoring sessions.ResultsFour mentors out of 5 responded. All 4 had prior neutral and positive experiences as mentees involving career advice and subspecialty choice. During this experience all mentors had a positive experience. The majority found it helpful to have residents of different levels in their group to allow for peer to peer mentoring and all thought the mentoring program should continue. The most common topics they covered during the sessions were career advice and specialty choice. Sixteen residents out of 20 responded. The majority had had a previous mentor experience which was mostly positive or very positive and predominantly career and/or research related. Almost all of them had a positive or very positive mentoring experience this year. The high majority found that having residents of different levels was beneficial. Topics that mentoring sessions helped mostly with were career advice, work life balance and study skills. All of the mentees thought the mentoring program should continue.ConclusionsMentoring groups can be a valuable addition to residency training, especially in helping with career advice and work life balance.     

2019-2021年我国介入放射工作人员眼晶状体剂量水平调查与分析

目的 调查与分析我国2019-2021年介入放射工作人员眼晶状体剂量水平。方法 通过国家放射卫生信息平台,收集我国31个省、直辖市、自治区2019-2021年介入放射工作人员的眼晶状体剂量监测数据。眼晶状体剂量评价指标为个人剂量当量H_p（3）,每次监测周期不超过3个月。用Kusall-Wallis H检验比较不同年份、职业岗位、介入科室、工作所限的介入放射工作人员眼晶状体剂量分布的差异。结果 2019-2021年共调查6 643人次介入放射工作人员,平均眼晶状体年剂量为1.03 mSv,中位数为0.17 mSv,最大值为94.88 mSv,其中有59人次超过20 mSv。经分析发现,2019年、2020年医生眼晶状体年剂量水平略高于护士,差异有统计学意义（平均秩次差=118.29、129.71,P<0.01）,2019年从事心脏介入的放射工作人员眼晶状体剂量水平高于从事周围血管介入的放射工作人员,差异有统计学意义（平均秩次差=46.52,P<0.05）。结论 介入放射工作人员眼晶状体剂量水平低于我国现行标准,但部分人员超过了国际最新推荐剂量限值,为保护介入放射工作人员职业健康,应加强对其眼晶状体剂量的监测。     

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.     

Fellowship Candidate Factors Considered by Program Directors

ObjectiveThe neuroradiology fellowship match has been in existence for about 20 years. However, the elements by which neuroradiology fellowship program directors evaluate candidates have not been clearly elucidated. We sought to identify the factors that program directors use to rank neuroradiology fellowship applicants.MethodsAn anonymous Qualtrics online five-question survey about educational credentials, personal traits, extracurricular activities, and demographic characteristics was sent to 72 neuroradiology program directors in April 2019. Each question required ranking of 10 factors based on different characteristics of fellowship candidates. Items included gender, nationality, US Medical Licensing Examination scores, internal applicants, work and research experience, recommendation letters, residency program, medical school attended, and visa status. Program directors had the ability to list any new characteristics that were not included in the survey.ResultsIn all, 68 of 72 (94.4%) neuroradiology programs responded to the survey. The most important criteria by which candidates were assessed were (1) residency program attended for educational credential, (2) personality as assessed by faculty at interviews for candidate personal traits, (3) research performed for candidate’s extracurricular activities, and (4) likelihood of coming to or previous experience in the fellowship geographic area. Neuroradiology program directors independently stressed residency program attended, personality assessed during the interview by faculty, internal candidate status, letters of recommendation, and research activities as their top five criteria in ranking the candidates.ConclusionMultiple factors are weighed by neuroradiology fellowship program directors in selecting fellows, but recent experiences in residency, research, and faculty interactions are prioritized. Internal candidates have an advantage for remaining as fellows within their residency programs.     

Radiology resident selection factors predict resident performance

PurposeTo determine selection factors that predict radiology resident performance.Methods59 consecutive radiology residents from 2002 to 2015 were ranked on performance during residency. Correlations and multiple regression analyses were performed to predict resident performance from the following selection factors: United States Medical Licensing Exam (USMLE) Step 1 score, medical school rank, Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership, honors in clinical rotations, Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE), and interview score. Results were compared against predictions from Match rank position.ResultsFive selection factors showed significant or marginally significant correlations with resident performance (r = 0.2 to 0.3). The interview score was not significantly correlated. A multiple regression model comprised of the USMLE Step 1 score, medical school rank, AOA membership, and interview score predicted resident performance, with an adjusted R² of 0.19. The interview score was included in the model but did not achieve statistical significance. Match rank did not predict resident performance, with an R² of 0.01.ConclusionsA multiple regression model comprised of the USMLE Step 1 score, medical school rank, and AOA membership predicted radiology resident performance and may assist with resident selection.     

MD and DO: Differing Medical Degrees and the Associated Perceptions

PurposeTo highlight perspectives about differing medical degrees and graduate medical education amongst current allopathic (MD) and osteopathic (DO) radiology residents.Materials and MethodTwo hundred sixty-eight radiology residents were interviewed using an approved Association of Program Coordinators in Radiology (APCR) survey designed to evaluate perceptions of allopathic and osteopathic radiology residents regarding type of medical degree and their career development. The surveys were kept anonymous with no identifiable information. Residents in their first through fourth years of training replied with an approximate equal distribution amongst the different years.ResultsBased on the 268 respondents, DOs’ more so than MDs’, reported that their degree type altered their medical careers (P < 0.0001) and that they were advised to not pursue a radiology residency based on degree type (P< 0.0001). In addition, a large majority of both DOs’ and MDs’ felt that residency selection is favored towards the allopathic degree (P= 0.0451).ConclusionThis survey-based study does reveal perceived differences in the residency recruitment process based on degree type. Future discussions to bridge this perceived gap will be important, especially in light of the recent ACGME merger between the 2 educational pathways.     

Virtual medical student radiology clerkships during the COVID-19 pandemic: Distancing is not a barrier

BackgroundStress on medical education caused by COVID-19 has prompted medical schools to bar their students from onsite education at hospitals and clinics, limiting their educational experiences. Radiology is uniquely positioned to be a virtual rotation during this health crisis and beyond.PurposeTo implement virtual radiology clerkships and evaluate educational outcomes.MethodsWe developed virtual radiology clerkships using best practices from adult education theory; emphasizing self-directed and interactive learning through recommended reading materials, pre-recorded lectures, video conferencing, web-based learning modules from the ACR, as well as multimodality radiology resources to allow students flexibility in their individual approach to the subject matter.ResultsThe mean performance on standardized exams for our cohorts was 75% (range 50–96%), matching the national average of 75%. Surveys of medical students after the clerkship showed positive subjective feedback on the content and structure of the course.ConclusionsUnderstanding of medical imaging is vital for student doctors to have a better understanding of applied anatomy, patient care strategies, appropriate use, and image interpretation. Radiology is uniquely positioned to be taught in a virtual format, or in a combination of online and in-person activities. Standardized examination performance for our institutional virtual radiology clerkships is comparable to performance on traditional courses. Virtual clerkships designed with adult learners in mind can help student doctors prepare for residency and future independent practice as they build knowledge and skills needed to provide high quality patient care.     

Non-interventional Radiology Fellowship Programs: What Is Out There?

ObjectiveTo determine the spectrum of non-interventional radiology fellowship programs in institutions that offer both a radiology residency program and one or more non-interventional radiology fellowship programs.MethodsInstitutions offering both radiology residency and non-interventional radiology fellowship programs were identified using publicly available websites. The non-interventional radiology fellowship programs were categorized into “traditional” (neuroradiology, breast imaging, abdominal imaging, musculoskeletal imaging, thoracic imaging, pediatric radiology, and nuclear medicine) and “nontraditional” fellowship programs. The nontraditional programs were stratified into four categories: a) Combinations of traditional fellowships; b) Focused nontraditional fellowships; c) Combinations of traditional and focused nontraditional fellowships (excluding traditional-traditional combinations); and d) Mandatory two-year fellowships. The distributions of the different types of traditional and nontraditional fellowship programs were evaluated.Results555 fellowship programs were identified in 113 institutions that offered both radiology residency and non-interventional radiology fellowship programs. 73.33% (407/555) of the programs were traditional fellowships, and 26.66% (148/555) were nontraditional fellowships. The 148 nontraditional fellowship programs were comprised of 41 different types of programs, 23 types of which were unique to and offered exclusively at specific institutions. 38.08% of the traditional fellowship programs were Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) accredited, while only 16.21% (24/148) of the nontraditional fellowship programs were ACGME-accredited.ConclusionsThe nontraditional non-interventional radiology fellowship programs are formed by a heterogeneous group of programs, some of which are offered exclusively at a single institution. Awareness of the types of existing programs would help radiology residents in making a more informed decision regarding their fellowship training.     

Impact of Early Radiology Research Experiences on Medical Student Perceptions of Radiology and Research

Rationale and objectivesTo promote opportunities for medical students to gain early exposure to radiology and research, our institution has initiated programs which fund summer radiology research projects for rising second-year medical students. This study assesses the impact of these faculty-mentored summer research experiences on medical student perceptions of radiology and research, in terms of both knowledge and interest.Materials and methodsA voluntary, anonymous survey was administered to students both before and after the summer research period. Both the pre-program survey and post-program survey included 7-point Likert-scale questions (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree) to evaluate students’ perceptions about research and students’ perceptions about radiology as a specialty. Faculty mentors were sent an analogous post-program survey that included an evaluation of their student's research skills.ResultsThe surveys were completed by 9 of 11 students and 10 of 11 mentors. Students’ perceived knowledge of radiology as a specialty improved (P = 0.02) between the pre-program survey and post-program survey. Similarly, there was an increase in students’ perceived knowledge of research skills (P = 0.02) between the pre-program survey and post-program survey, with student ratings of research skills consistent with those of mentors. High student interest in both radiology and research was maintained over the course of the program.ConclusionOur pilot study suggests that summer research experiences can improve knowledge of radiology and research among medical students. Continued evaluation of this annual program will allow us to enhance the benefit to medical students and thereby bolster interest in academic radiology.     

International survey on residency programs in radiology: similarities and differences among 17 countries

ObjectiveWith the initiative of the ACR International Economics Committee, a multinational survey was conducted to evaluate radiology residency programs around the world.MethodsA 31-question survey was developed. It included: economic issues, program size and length, resident's activities during daytime and call, academic aspects including syllabus and examinations. Data was tabulated using the forementioned thematic framework and was qualitatively analyzed.ResultsResponses were received from all 17 countries that were invited to participate (France, Netherlands, Israel, UK, Russia, USA, Japan, India, Germany, Canada, Turkey, Croatia, Serbia, Italy, Ireland, Hungary, and Greece). Residency length varied between 2 and 5 years. The certificate of residency completion is provided by a local hospital [4/17 (23%)], University [6/17 (36%)], National Board [6/17 (36%)], and Ministry of Health [1/17 (6%)]. There was variability among the number of residency programs and residents per program ranging from 15 to 300 programs per nation with a 1–700 residents in each one respectively. Salaries varied significantly and ranged from 8000 to 75,000 USD equivalent. Exams are an integral part of training in all surveyed countries. Length of call varied between 5 and 26 h and the number of monthly calls ranged from 3 to 6. The future of radiology was judged as growing in [12/17 (70%)] countries and stagnant in [5/17 (30%)] countries.DiscussionRadiology residency programs worldwide have many similarities. The differences are in the structure of the residency programs. Stagnation and uncertainties need to be addressed to ensure the continued development of the next generation of radiologists.Summary statementThere are many similarities in the academic aims and approach to education and training of radiology residency programs worldwide. The differences are in the structure of the residency programs and payments to individual residents.     

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.