Emergency department coverage by academic departments of radiology

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to survey academic radiology departments to determine how emergency radiology coverage is handled and whether there are any prerequisites for those individuals providing this coverage. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The authors developed a simple two-page survey and sent it to a total of 608 program directors, chiefs of diagnostic radiology, chairpersons, and chief residents at academic departments of radiology. RESULTS: Of the 608 surveys sent, 278 (46%) were returned. More than half of the departments have an emergency radiology section that provides "wet read" coverage during the day, and most academic departments cover the emergency department during the night and on weekends. Nighttime and weekend coverage is handled mostly by residents. Most departments give time off for lunch, with few other prerequisites for faculty who provide emergency coverage. Sixty percent of the departments have teleradiology capability, and many use it for emergency department coverage. CONCLUSION: These results can serve as the basis for discussion and comparison with other institutions regarding a variety of aspects of emergency department coverage.     

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.     

Interpretation of Emergency Department radiographs: a comparison of emergency medicine physicians with radiologists, residents with faculty, and film with digital display

OBJECTIVE: We determined the relative value of teleradiology and radiology resident coverage of the emergency department by measuring and comparing the effects of physician specialty, training level, and image display method on accuracy of radiograph interpretation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A sample of four faculty emergency medicine physicians, four emergency medicine residents, four faculty radiologists, and four radiology residents participated in our study. Each physician interpreted 120 radiographs, approximately half containing a clinically important index finding. Radiographs were interpreted using the original films and high-resolution digital monitors. Accuracy of radiograph interpretation was measured as the area under the physicians' receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. RESULTS: The area under the ROC curve was 0.15 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.10-0.20) greater for radiologists than for emergency medicine physicians, 0.07 (95% CI, 0.02-0.12) greater for faculty than for residents, and 0.07 (95% CI, 0.02-0.12) greater for films than for video monitors. Using these results, we estimated that teleradiology coverage by faculty radiologists would add 0.09 (95% CI, 0.03-0.15) to the area under the ROC curve for radiograph interpretation by emergency medicine faculty alone, and radiology resident coverage would add 0.08 (95% CI, 0.02-0.14) to this area. CONCLUSION: We observed significant differences between the interpretation of radiographs on film and on digital monitors. However, we observed differences of equal or greater magnitude associated with the training level and physician specialty of each observer. In evaluating teleradiology services, observer characteristics must be considered in addition to the quality of image display.     

Emergency radiology in Canada: a national survey.

OBJECTIVE: To document the existing radiology services available to emergency physicians in hospitals across Canada and to preview future trends and needs. METHODS: Questionnaires (n = 130) regarding the type, availability and satisfaction with radiology services were distributed to radiologists and emergency physicians at 65 hospitals across Canada. RESULTS: Fifty-three (41%) questionnaires were returned, and 45 (35%) completed questionnaires from 35 hospitals were used for analysis (24 from radiologists and 21 from emergency physicians). Plain radiographs were available in all hospitals at all times. Ultrasonography, intravenous pyleograms and computed tomography (CT) were available in all departments during normal working hours; after hours, CT was unavailable in 1 hospital and ultrasonography was unavailable in 2. Focused assessment with sonography for trauma (FAST) was routinely performed for blunt abdominal trauma in 6 centres, and 10 centres had teleradiology services. Regarding the quality of emergency service, 7 of 45 responded "poor," 4 "average," 14 "good," and 17 of 45 rated service "excellent." Interestingly, most radiologists answered "good" or "excellent," and most of the "poor" responses came from emergency physicians. Regarding staff coverage after 5 pm, 34 hospitals provided CT services, 20 had ultrasonography staff available, and there was radiology nursing coverage in 14 hospitals. Clinical details on requisitions were generally rated "adequate" or "poor." Although most radiograph reports were available within 48 hours, some took longer. Hot-seat reporting was available in 11 centres. During normal working hours, radiologists were the first to read films in 5 of 35 hospitals. After hours, emergency physicians were the first to read films in all hospitals, but only 14 hospitals indicated they were "formally" trained to do so. CONCLUSION: This survey documents the strengths and weaknesses of the radiology services available to emergency physicians. The perceptions of emergency physicians and radiologists of the adequacy those services differ significantly.     

Resident Interpretation of Emergency CT Scans in the Evaluation of Acute Appendicitis

PURPOSE: Radiology resident interpretation of computed tomographic (CT) scans at academic institutions often guides management of cases of suspected acute appendicitis in the emergency department. The purpose of this study was to compare resident and faculty interpretation of CT scans obtained for acute appendicitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From December 16, 1999, to July 13, 2000, CT was performed in 103 consecutive patients between the hours of 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM who were suspected of having acute appendicitis. The authors compared the residents' preliminary written interpretations with both the final reports written by the faculty and the surgical findings. The faculty interpreting the CT scans were aware of resident interpretations but were not aware that a study was being conducted. RESULTS: The final faculty interpretation and the preliminary resident interpretation were identical in 96 of the 103 patients (93%; 95% confidence interval: 87.8%, 97.2%). In only one patient was a scan originally interpreted as negative interpreted as positive by the faculty member. Clinically, the patient did not have acute appendicitis, and surgery was not perforrmed. CONCLUSION: In the diagnosis of acute appendicitis, image interpretations made by adequately trained radiology residents can be expected to closely match those of the radiology faculty, and the practice of after-hours interpretation of such studies by radiology residents is safe.     

The association of departmental leadership gender with that of faculty and residents in radiology

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Although the number of women graduating from medical school continues to increase, their representation in radiology residency programs has not increased over the past 10 years. We examined whether the gender of radiology faculty and residents differed according to the gender of the departmental leadership. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We issued an anonymous Web-based survey via e-mail to all 188 radiology residency program directors listed in the Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database (FREIDA Online). Data regarding the gender of the department chairperson, residency program director, faculty, and residents were collected. The institutional review board granted a waiver for this study, and all subjects provided informed consent. RESULTS: Of the 84 program directors who responded, 9 (10.7%) were chaired by females and 75 (89.3%) by males; residency program director positions were held by 36 (42.9%) females and 48 (57.1%) males. More programs were located in the northeastern United States (n = 31, 36.9%) than in any other region, and more were self-described as academic (n = 36, 42.9%) than any other practice type. Programs that were led by a male chairperson had a similar proportion of female faculty (25.2% versus 27.3%; P = .322) and residents (26.2% versus 27.4%; P = .065) compared with those led by a female. Similarly, radiology departments with a male residency program director had a similar proportion of female residents (24.8% versus 28.7%; P = .055) compared with programs with a female residency program director. CONCLUSION: The gender composition of radiology faculty and residents does not differ significantly according to the gender of the departmental chairperson or residency program director. Nevertheless, there continues to be a disparity in the representation of women among radiology faculty and residents.     

Emergency imaging discrepancy rates at a level 1 trauma center: identifying the most common on-call resident “misses”

The focus of our research is to identify the most frequently reported on-call discrepancies at our hospital by modality and level of resident training. Our intent is to identify specific areas of concern that may be amenable to improvement through initiation of dedicated resident training in the field of emergency radiology. Our study included 648 significant discrepancies from 193,722 studies ordered through the emergency department over a 7-year period. The overall discrepancy rates were calculated for each resident level of training and modality type. Significance was determined using χ2 testing with α?=?0.05. The most common types of discrepancies were identified. The overall rate of reported discrepancies was low for all levels of training (0.23–0.42 %) with a small, but statistically significant, decrease in rate for the senior residents. Common categories of discrepancies for all residents included fractures on radiographs (XR) and computed tomography (CT), masses and hemorrhage on CT, and lung nodules and pulmonary infiltrates on radiographs. Specific discrepancies reported more frequently for new call-takers included phalangeal fractures on XR as well as white matter disease, hepatic lacerations, pyelonephritis, peritoneal fluid, lymphadenopathy, and pneumothoraces on CT. It is our recommendation that radiology resident training programs ensure that the common discrepancies illustrated herein are specifically addressed as part of a dedicated emergency radiology course.     

Factors associated with academic radiology research productivity

PURPOSE: To determine factors associated with research productivity among all university radiology departments in the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS: As an observational study, this was exempt from institutional review board approval. All 47,299 radiology articles from 1996 through 2003 that were indexed in the National Library of Medicine MEDLINE database were studied. Each article was assigned a "publication impact" score based on the impact factor of its source journal. These citations were then matched, along with National Institutes of Health (NIH) extramural grant, residency, fellowship, faculty, and geographic data, to 109 individual medical school radiology departments. Raw citation count was used to measure research quantity, and aggregate publication impact was used to measure quality. Regression analyses were used to compare the relationship between the study variables and research quality and quantity measures on the departmental and individual faculty level. RESULTS: Finalized statistical models accounted for 75%-88% of variance in productivity. NIH funding had a significant and positive association with all measures of research productivity (P < .001), with one article associated with 167,980 dollars in funding and one publication impact unit associated with 83,271 dollars in funding. Large resident program sizes (P < .001) and the presence of fellows (P = .007) also had a significant association. Geographic region, salary, and faculty characteristics had no detectable association. Extrapolations based on these results estimated the cost of annual global radiology research at 907 million dollars, with the U.S. component at at least 417 million dollars. NIH funding accounted for 45% of the U.S. component. CONCLUSION: NIH funding, resident program size, and fellow characteristics are significantly associated with academic research output.     

Current practices in evaluating radiology residents, faculty, and programs: results of a survey of radiology residency program directors

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: We surveyed program directors to determine current radiology program practices in evaluating their residents, faculty, and program. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In January 2003, a 52-item Web-based survey was made available to program directors of accredited core radiology programs. Responses to the items were tabulated to determine relative frequency distribution. Two-tailed Pearson chi-square tests were used to compare proportions and assess the association between variables. RESULTS: A total of 99 (52%) of 192 program directors responded. Programs were largely in compliance with Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requirements. Noncompliance was related to the requirements to evaluate residents at least four times per year in at least 22 (22.2%) of 99 programs and annually evaluate the program in 20 (20.2%) of 99 programs. New program directors (<1-year tenure) were less likely than those with >/=1-year tenure to be using the Association of Program Directors in Radiology Education Committee global rating form (41.2% versus 68.8%, P =.03). Programs that used this form, compared with those that didn't, were more likely to evaluate resident competence in systems-based practice (88.5% versus 44.0%, P =.001). Being a program director for 1 or more years versus less than 1 year was associated with using a computerized evaluation system (35.8% versus 11.8%, P =.05). CONCLUSION: In general, there is a high degree of compliance among radiology programs in meeting ACGME evaluation requirements. However, some programs do not comply with requirements for frequency of resident evaluation or annual program evaluation. The percentage of new program directors is high and related to not using or knowing about useful evaluation resources. Use of computerized evaluation systems, which have the potential to decrease the work associated with evaluations and provide more dependable and reliable data, is minimal.     

Residents’ Perceptions of Usage of the Current Alumni and Attending Network for a Formal Mentorship Program in an Academic Affiliated Community Hospital Radiology Residency

Mentor-mentee relationships within radiology residencies can add significant value to a resident’s overall experience. Studies demonstrate that mentorship programs can increase satisfaction for residents and faculty alike by reducing stress, easing career related decisions, increasing involvement with research, improving teaching and communication skills, and finally increasing leadership roles. In a survey of radiology program directors, 85% of program directors find such a program beneficial but only 57% have a formal program in place. Totally, 42% of program directors believe a structured mentorship program is necessary. Studies have also shown that female residents prefer female mentors. Alumni serve as an ideal group for resident mentorship as they do not face the pressures of internal faculty. No study to date in diagnostic radiology literature uses an alumni network in establishing a formal mentorship program. The objective of this study is to implement a formal mentorship program within an academic affiliated radiology residency by using program alumni and internal attending physicians for potentially increasing faculty engagement, improving resident morale, research opportunities, and networking for fellowship and job opportunities.     

Comparison of emergency cranial CT interpretation between radiology residents and neuroradiologists: transverse versus three-dimensional images

PURPOSE

Three-dimensional (3D) reformatted images provide a more inclusive representation of abnormalities than transverse images in cranial computed tomography (CT). The purpose of this study was to assess the value of 3D reformations for radiology residents in the interpretation of emergency cranial CTs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In total, 218 consecutive patients who underwent emergency cranial CT scans with 3D reformation were included in this retrospective study. Four blinded readers (three radiology residents and a neuroradiologist) interpreted the transverse and 3D images in two separate sessions. Each reader assessed 1) abnormal finding(s) and the confidence score(s) (5-point scale) for transverse and 3D images, 2) added value score of 3D images (5-point scale), and 3) interpretation time for both transverse and 3D images. We analyzed discordance between each radiology resident and the neuroradiologist on a lesion-by-lesion basis.

RESULTS

In total, 509 lesions were detected in 218 patients. Discordance rates between the three residents and the neuroradiologist were 11.4%–20.2% (mean, 15.0%) and 8.8%–16.9% (mean, 12.1%) in the interpretation of transverse and 3D images, respectively. Confidence scores were higher for 3D images than for transverse images for all readers. The added value scores for the 3D images were relatively higher for the inexperienced residents. Interpretation times for 3D images were significantly higher than for transverse images for all readers.

CONCLUSION

The 3D reformations assist radiology residents in the interpretation of emergency cranial CT examinations.Unenhanced cranial computed tomography (CT) is the primary imaging modality for the emergency evaluation of patients with acute neurological deficits because of its wide availability, speed, costeffectiveness, and ability to assess less stable patients (1). Although some institutions may have 24-hour CT interpretation by an experienced neuroradiologist, many hospitals provide overnight coverage for CT studies by an on-call radiology resident. The final interpretation is then provided by attending neuroradiologists, usually the next day. Thus, accurate initial interpretation of cranial CT scans by the resident is critical for proper patient management.A few studies have investigated discordance between radiology residents and neuroradiologists in the interpretation of unenhanced cranial CT scans and they reported discordance rates in the range of 2.1%–8.3% (2–4). This discordance rate may be influenced by several factors, such as the resident’s level of training, prevalence and type of disease, and imaging technique (e.g., resolution, display, image plane).A few studies have assessed the added value of three-dimensional (3D) reformations versus transverse plane views in the evaluation of cranial CT examinations (5, 6). To our knowledge, however, no reported study has evaluated the effect of 3D reformatted images on radiology residents’ performance.The aim of this study was to assess the value of 3D reformations to radiology residents in the interpretation of unenhanced emergency cranial CT scans.     

Postgraduate radiology training in sub-Saharan Africa: a review of current educational resources

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVE: Postgraduate training programs in radiology exist in several African nations. The ability of these programs to train radiologists is necessarily affected by local availability of educational resources, including clinical case volume, radiology equipment and maintenance, number of teaching faculty, and library and computer facilities. We sought to determine the current resources of a sample of African radiology education programs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Site visits were conducted at three separate radiology training programs, one in Ghana and two in South Africa. At each site, the investigator conducted a technology census, assessed library resources, observed daily trainee activities, and interviewed trainees, faculty, and statisticians. RESULTS: African radiology trainees receive considerable training in fluoroscopy, ultrasound, and plain film radiography, but receive considerably less training in nuclear medicine, mammography, magnetic resonance imaging, and interventional radiology. A large amount of equipment in African teaching hospitals is inoperative because of lack of maintenance programs. Faculty to resident ratios in African teaching hospitals are much lower than in American hospitals. Needs of training programs vary greatly from hospital to hospital, and from country to country. CONCLUSION: Radiologists, radiology organizations, and radiology vendors from high-income nations are in a unique position to help Africa's postgraduate radiology training programs fulfill their mission of training Africa's next generation of radiologists. It is desirable that long-term commitments be made to teaching hospitals so that scarce donated resources may be put to the best possible use.     

Evaluation of clinical experience in a radiology residency program with quantitative profiling: rationale,methods, and application

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The author developed a technique for residency program evaluation, called "quantitative profiling," that is based on computer retrieval of radiologic reports. The hypothesis was that it would provide insights into the contributions of residents to clinical service, measures of resident experience and productivity for program evaluation, and benchmarks for comparison. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The radiology residency program of a major teaching hospital was studied retrospectively from 1989 to 1997. The number of radiologic reports signed by individual residents and faculty members was retrieved. The clinical experience of the 1993-1997 cohort of residents was described according to subspecialty area and modality. RESULTS: Residents signed 46.5% of all reports, with a mean total of 14,445 reports +/- 1,292 per resident during the entire residency. The distribution of examinations was as follows: thoracic, 42.1%; musculoskeletal, 26.1%; abdominal, 13.4%; sonography, 8.7%; neuroradiology, 4.3%; nuclear, 2.4%; breast, 1.6%; and vascular, 1.4%. The most frequently reported results were for one-view chest radiography. CONCLUSION: Quantitative profiling can help track the range and progress of resident experience, help determine the deployment of residents, and provide empirical data upon which decisions to modify residency programs may be based.     

Curriculum in radiology for residents: what, why, how, when, and where

Developing a curriculum in chest radiology should follow the same general principles that are used when developing a curriculum in any subspecialty area of radiology. A curriculum is more than a "list of topics" with which a resident should be familiar after 4 years of training. It includes objectives and goals, content, faculty, methods, and evaluation. Numerous resources are available for those who are charged with developing a curriculum in chest radiology. In addition to faculty members in the department, whose input during development can ensure successful implementation of the curriculum, organizations (i.e., ACR, APDR, STR) already have begun to develop "model" curricula. Attending the annual meeting of the Association of American Medical Colleges is a way to meet and hear from professionals who develop and oversee curriculum development at their medical schools, and another important resource available at some medical schools is the Office of Medical Education. The faculty within such offices are uniquely qualified to assist with curriculum and faculty development, especially for those areas in which radiology faculty traditionally are less experienced, such as development of valid and reliable assessment forms and construction of behaviorally based objectives.     

Comprehensive innovative solution for resident education using the Intranet Journal of Chest Radiology

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Because of the rapid increase in clinical workload in academic radiology departments, time for teaching rotating residents is getting more and more limited. As a solution to this problem, we introduced the Intranet Journal of Chest Radiology as a comprehensive innovative tool for assisting resident education. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Intranet Journal of Chest Radiology is constructed using Microsoft FrontPage version 2002 (Microsoft Corp, Redmond, WA) and is hosted in our departmental web server (Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA). The home page of the intranet journal provides access to the main features, "Cases of the Month," "Teaching File," "Selected Articles for Residents," "Lecture Series," and "Current Publications." These features provide quick access to the selected radiology articles, the interesting chest cases, and the lecture series and current publication from the chest section. RESULTS: Our intranet journal has been well utilized for 6 months after its introduction. It enhances residents' interest and motivation to work on case collections, to search and read articles, and to generate interest in research. Frequent updating is necessary for the journal to be kept current, relevant, and well-utilized. CONCLUSION: The intranet journal serves as a comprehensive innovative solution for resident education, providing basic educational resources and opportunities of interactive participation by residents.     

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.     

Comparison of on-call radiology resident and faculty interpretation of 4- and 16-row multidetector CT pulmonary angiography with indirect CT venography

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: On-call radiology residents frequently interpret computed tomography (CT) pulmonary angiography and CT venography studies outside of routine working hours. The purpose of this study was to compare resident and faculty interpretation concordance rates and to see if concordance rates differed depending on the number of CT detectors used. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study population included 122 consecutive CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA) and CT venography (CTV) examinations performed on a four-row multidetector CT (MDCT) and 125 consecutive CTPA examinations performed using a 16-row MDCT scanner with CTV performed in 124 patients. Preliminary resident reports and final faculty reports were compared. Discrepant cases were independently reviewed by three cardiothoracic radiologists who were unaware of the initial interpretations. Interpretation concordance rates were calculated for both 4- and 16- row MDCT studies and compared using Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Resident and faculty CTPA and CTV interpretations were concordant in 80% of the 4-row cases and 94% of the 16-row cases. When comparing resident interpretation to the final expert reference standard, the corrected resident error rate was 11% and 2% for 4-row CTPA and CTV, respectively and 4% and 2% for 16-row CTPA and CTV, respectively. Overall CTPA and CTV concordance was significantly lower for 4-row MDCT (80% versus 94%, P < .001 [two-sided] by Fisher's exact test). CONCLUSIONS: Radiology resident interpretation of CTPA and CTV studies demonstrates a high level of agreement with radiology faculty interpretation. Concordance rates are significantly higher for 16-row MDCT than 4-row MDCT which may be due to improved image quality.     

Radiology resident evaluation of head CT scan orders in the emergency department

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Prior studies have revealed little difference in residents' abilities to interpret cranial CT scans. The purpose of this study was to assess the performance of radiology residents at different levels of training in the interpretation of emergency head CT images. METHODS: Radiology residents prospectively interpreted 1324 consecutive head CT scans ordered in the emergency department at the University of Arizona Health Science Center. The residents completed a preliminary interpretation form that included their interpretation and confidence in that interpretation. One of five neuroradiologists with a Certificate of Added Qualification subsequently interpreted the images and classified their assessment of the residents' interpretations as follows: "agree," "disagree-insignificant," or "disagree-significant." The data were analyzed by using analysis-of-variance or chi-squared methods. RESULTS: Overall, the agreement rate was 91%; the insignificant disagreement rate, 7%; and the significant disagreement rate, 2%. The level of training had a significant (P =.032) effect on the rate of agreement; upper-level residents had higher rates of agreement than those of more junior residents. There were 62 false-negative findings. The most commonly missed findings were fractures (n = 18) and chronic ischemic foci (n = 12). The most common false-positive interpretations involved 10 suspected intracranial hemorrhages and suspected fractures. CONCLUSION: The level of resident training has a significant effect on the rate of disagreement between the preliminary interpretations of emergency cranial CT scans by residents and the final interpretations by neuroradiologists. Efforts to reduce residents' errors should focus on the identification of fractures and signs of chronic ischemic change.     

Review of outside studies by radiology residents: national survey of chief residents

The purpose of this study was to establish practice patterns of radiology residents in regards to interpretation and reporting of outside studies for transferred patients. We performed a national survey of radiology residency chief residents, administered by email through the Association of Program Directors in Radiology (APDR). There were 81 chief resident respondents, representing 42.8 % of 187 total Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-approved radiology residency training programs in the USA. In 97.5 % of programs, residents perform interpretations of outside studies. Up to 76.7 % of respondents state that when outside studies are reviewed by residents, an original report is available in less than one quarter of cases. While 55.1 % of respondents state that there is a mechanism for recording their findings and impressions for outside studies, only 32.1 % are aware of a policy requiring documentation. Of the respondents, 42.3 % report they have no means for documenting their findings and impressions on outside studies. Further, 65.4 % state that there is no policy requiring an attending to review and document agreement with their interpretation of outside studies. There is wide institutional variation in both policy and practice regarding reinterpretation of outside studies for patients transferred to academic hospitals. While the majority of radiology residents are providing the service of reinterpreting outside studies, only a minority of residency programs have a policy requiring (1) documentation of their impressions or (2) attending oversight and documentation of discrepant opinions.     

Patient, faculty, and self-assessment of radiology resident performance: a 360-degree method of measuring professionalism and interpersonal/communication skills

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To develop and test the reliability, validity, and feasibility of a 360-degree evaluation to measure radiology resident competence in professionalism and interpersonal/communication skills. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An evaluation form with 10 Likert-type items related to professionalism and interpersonal/communication skills was completed by a resident, supervising radiologist and patient after resident-patient interactions related to breast biopsy procedures. Residents were also evaluated by faculty, using an end-of-rotation global rating form. Residents, faculty, and technologists were queried regarding their reaction to the assessments after a 7-month period. RESULTS: Fifty-six complete 360-degree data sets (range, 2-14 per resident) and seven rotational evaluations for seven residents were analyzed and compared. Internal consistency reliability estimates were 0.85, 0.86, and 0.87 for resident, patient, and faculty 360-degree evaluations, respectively. Correlations between resident-versus-patient, resident-versus-faculty, and patient-versus-faculty ratings for the 56 interactions were -0.06 (P =.64), 0.31 (P <.02), and 0.45 (P <.0006), respectively. Pearson correlation coefficients approached significant correlation (0.70) between the faculty global rating and patient 360-degree scores (P =.08) but not with faculty 360-degree scores. Residents and faculty felt that completing the 360-degree forms was easy, but the requirement for faculty presence during the consent process was burdensome. CONCLUSION: Results from this pilot study suggest that self, faculty, and patient evaluations of resident performance constitutes a valid and reliable assessment of resident competence. Additional data are needed to determine whether the 360-degree assessment should be incorporated into residency programs and how frequently the assessment should be performed. Requiring only a specified number of assessments per rotation would make the process less burdensome for residents and faculty.