Results of the 2004 survey of the American Association of Academic Chief Residents in Radiology

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVE: Every year, the American Association of Academic Chief Residents in Radiology (A3CR2) conducts a survey of the chief residents in accredited radiology programs in the United States and Canada. The purpose of the survey is to evaluate current residents' opinions regarding a number of different issues pertaining to their educational experience, work responsibilities, and benefits. This information is useful in monitoring patterns of change in resident attitudes toward their experiences within their residency training programs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Online surveys were made available to the chief residents from 193 training programs in North America. For the most part, the questions were presented in a multiple-choice format, with additional space for elaboration or comments provided for many of the items. Some questions are repeated annually, addressing general topics such as salary and hospital size. However, new questions are incorporated each year. In particular, this year's survey included questions pertaining to Armed Forces Institute of Pathology course funding, and advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) /basic life support certification and changes in duty work hour and call requirements in the face of changing ACGME (Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education) regulations. RESULTS: The results of the survey were then tabulated, and responses to several of the repeated questions were compared with those from prior surveys dating back to 1996. This year's response rate was 55%, with 106 unique responses received. This represents an improvement since last year's survey, when the response rate was 41%. In some cases, more than one response was generated by a given residency program, in which case the questionnaire that was more thoroughly completed was used for statistical analysis. Responses were received from chief residents in 37 states and in Canada. The largest number of respondents was from New York, and 80% percent of respondents were from programs affiliated with a university. Forty-two percent were incoming chief residents with less than 3 months' experience, whereas 58% were outgoing chief residents with less than 9 months remaining in their tenure. CONCLUSION: The majority of respondents report that changes made by their respective programs as the result of new ACGME maximum duty hour standards have been viewed favorably by radiology residents. Many training programs have moved toward a night float based call system in order to maintain compliance. Nearly all programs have overnight in-house radiology resident coverage, but there has been a slight decline in the percentage of programs that provide in-house attending coverage at night. The majority of residents, however, have access to attendings after-hours by pager. Finally, resident salaries and benefits continue to increase, as has been the trend over the past several years.     

RadioGraphics: a Web-based model for radiology resident self-education

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The residency review committee (RRC) for diagnostic radiology of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education mandates core competencies including computer-aided applications in medicine. The purpose of this review was to evaluate the use of RadioGraphics' on-line CME to satisfy the RRC requirements. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty radiology residents at a university training program read the same four articles in the on-line version of RadioGraphics. Before reading each article, the residents took the associated CME pre-test and, after completing the article, the CME post-test. Each resident completed a survey to evaluate the quality of the resident experience using RadioGraphics' CME on-line program after completing the four articles and tests. RESULTS: The combined mean scores of all four articles pre-test and post-test scores were 5.6 and 9.3. Significant improvement in the test scores was determined by a student t-test (P < .001). Fourteen residents agreed and one resident disagreed with the statement that the modules were time effective. Nineteen of 20 residents agreed with the statement that valuable information for future practice was gained and that they would continue to use RadioGraphics for CME in the future. All of the residents agreed with the statement that the experience satisfied the residency's requirement to teach computer skills appropriate for ongoing learning. CONCLUSION: RadioGraphics' on-line CME an effective method to teach residents skills required by the RRC.     

Radiology residency call in the northeastern United States: comparison of difficulty and frequency in programs of different size

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to develop objective measures of residency call frequency and difficulty, to establish mean values for the northeastern United States, and to test those values for correlation with program size. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A survey questionnaire was sent to 104 radiology residency programs in the northeastern United States. The programs were classified according to number of residents, as small (< 11 residents), medium-sized (11-20 residents), large (21-30 residents), or very large (> or = 31 residents). The call difficulty index was defined as the number of emergency examinations per resident per year. Call frequency indexes were defined as the numbers of evenings and of nights during the 4-year residency when residents were scheduled for call. RESULTS: The average call difficulty index and standard deviation for the respondent programs was 3,855 +/- 1,779. The average call frequency index and standard deviation for evenings was 140 +/- 53 and for nights was 120 +/- 59. A significant negative correlation was found between program size on one hand and call difficulty index (r = -0.36, P = .01), evening call frequency index (r = -0.29, P = .033), and night call frequency index (r = -0.51, P < .001) on the other. Residents in small programs could expect to be on call 192 evenings and 192 nights in the 4-year residency and to perform 4,866 emergency examinations per year, as opposed to the 110 evenings and 89 nights on call and the 3,213 emergency examinations that residents in very large programs could expect. In other words, the smaller the program, the more calls residents can expect to take, and the more emergency examinations they will interpret. CONCLUSION: The mean call difficulty and off-hours call frequency indexes established for residency programs of different size in the Northeast demonstrate increasing call difficulty and increasing off-hours call frequency with decreasing program size.     

A survey evaluating the beliefs of radiology residency program directors regarding incorporation of numeric standards into accreditation standards

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Numeric standards do not exist for the evaluation and comparison of radiology resident education. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education has recently proposed the evaluation and assessment of residents by using numeric values for films read in various radiology modalities. The purpose of this study was to evaluate radiology residency program directors' perceived need for numeric standards for radiology residency programs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Program directors were surveyed via a three-part questionnaire. Initial contact was made by e-mail, with follow-up by telephone if necessary. The survey questions were: (1) Do you feel that a need exists for a set of numerical standards for the number of films read by radiology residents in each of the various subspecialties? (2) Specify the needs that you see. (3) What are the barriers and disadvantages to acquiring such data? RESULTS: Survey responses were received from 44 of 192 radiology residency programs (23% response rate). Overall, 34 (77%) of 44 program directors were against implementation of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education proposal, whereas 8 (18%) of 44 program directors were in favor of the proposal and 2 (5%) of 44 were undecided. A variety of reasons, both for and against the proposal, were provided by program directors. CONCLUSION: Among the program directors responding to the survey, there was strong opposition to implementation of mandatory standards for specific numbers of radiologic examinations by residents as the basis for program accreditation.     

Revised curriculum on cardiothoracic radiology for diagnostic radiology residency with goals and objectives related to general competencies

This document is a revision of a previously published cardiothoracic curriculum for diagnostic radiology residency, and reflects interval changes in the clinical practice of cardiothoracic radiology and changes in the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requirements for diagnostic radiology training programs. The revised ACGME Program Requirements for Residency Education in Diagnostic Radiology went into effect December 2003.     

Present status of residency training in mammography

We conducted a telephone interview of all 207 accredited diagnostic radiology residency training programs listed in the American Medical Association's Directory of Graduate Medical Education Programs. Resident training in mammography was offered in 206 programs, and 35% of the programs had initiated this training within the past 3 years. Residents had an assigned block of time to do mammography in 84% of the programs. Of the 206 programs, 40% had rotations devoted exclusively to mammography, with 82% of the exclusive rotations lasting from 4 to 8 weeks. Residents were performing localization procedures in 91% of the programs and dictating cases in 81%. A distinction was made between screening and diagnostic examinations by 35% of the training institutions, at least in terms of the fee for the examination. Radiologists who devoted at least half of their practice to mammography taught in 52% of the programs. The American College of Radiology has granted accreditation in mammography to 29% of the programs. Although almost all accredited residency training programs offer training in mammography, there are some deficiencies in this training. More residents need to gain the experience of dictating mammography reports and need to learn about the distinctions between screening and diagnostic mammography. Despite the anticipated deluge of screening examinations in the next decade, there were only 17 fellowships that included at least 6 months of mammography identified in 15 (7%) of the institutions; only 11 of these were full-time 1-year breast imaging fellowships.     

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.     

Residency training data: What do the numbers tell us?

The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) regularly collects data on accredited residency programs that are useful for purposes of comparing resident demographics, turnover rates of program directors, and trends in program numbers and accreditation status. These data show that there are relatively fewer women in radiology residencies compared with other nonsurgical residencies. Women make up only 25% of core radiology residents. Further investigation is warranted to determine why this is so, because it will likely affect the ability to recruit female radiologists into leadership positions. Considering ACGME-accredited programs, those radiology subspecialties with the highest percentages of female trainees are pediatric radiology (45%) and nuclear radiology (44%). The turnover rate of radiology program directors is high (19%) relative to other specialties (14% on average), and this is being addressed in part by a change in the radiology program requirements. Other factors associated with this high turnover rate may also need to be addressed.     

Resident-reported brachytherapy experience in ACGME-accredited radiation oncology training programs

PurposeTo describe resident-reported experience in brachytherapy in Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education–accredited radiation oncology training programs over the last 5 years.Methods and MaterialsArchived reports of Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education final resident case logs from the last 5 years were reviewed and summarized. Brachytherapy was categorized according to the dose rate (low dose rate vs. high dose rate), technique (interstitial vs. intracavitary), and primary tumor site. Linear regression was used to test for trends.ResultsThe mean number of total brachytherapy procedures performed per resident in the last 5 years has decreased from 80.8 in 2006–2007 to 71.0 in 2010–2011, but the trend is not statistically significant. The average number of intracavitary procedures has remained steady. The average resident experience with interstitial brachytherapy has decreased in a statistically significant manner. The average number of interstitial procedures has decreased by 25%.ConclusionsThe average number of interstitial procedures reported by residents has decreased by 25%. The community charged with training residents in interstitial brachytherapy should consider methods to ensure that residents obtain sufficient experience in the future.     

The chief residency in radiology. Results of a survey of A3CR2 members

Detailed questionnaires were sent to the 192 members of the American Association of Academic Chief Residents in Radiology (A3CR2) to learn about the logistics of chief resident selection, the responsibilities of the chief resident, the attitudes and perceptions of the chief resident about his or her position, and suggestions for improving the chief residency. Completed questionnaires were returned by 149 (78%) chief residents from 111 different residency programs. The results show that radiology residents have a greater voice in selecting their chief residents than in the past. The number and types of responsibilities given to the chief resident at different institutions vary considerably. Although only 62% of respondents felt that being chief resident was worth their time and effort, 88% would accept the position again. The most commonly voiced suggestion was for greater input from the chief resident during the formulation of policies that affect the residents. Based on these results and a review of previous reports about the chief residency in other specialties, several proposals are offered for increasing the effectiveness of the radiology chief residency.     

Beyond business as usual: Radiology residency educational response to the COVID-2019 pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted standard hospital operations and diagnostic radiology resident education at academic medical centers across the country. Deferment of elective surgeries and procedures coupled with a shift of resources toward increased inpatient clinical needs for the care of COVID-19 patients has resulted in substantially decreased imaging examinations at many institutions. Additionally, both infection control and risk mitigation measures have resulted in minimal on-site staffing of both trainees and staff radiologists at many institutions. As a result, residents have been placed in nonstandard learning environments, including working from home, engaging in a virtual curriculum, and participating in training sessions in preparation for potential reassignment to other patient care settings. Typically, for residents to gain the necessary knowledge, skills, and experience to practice independently upon graduation, radiology training programs must provide an optimal balance between resident education and clinical obligations. We describe our experience adapting to the challenges in educational interruptions and clinical work reassignments of 41 interventional and diagnostic radiology residents at a large academic center. We highlight opportunities for collaboration and teamwork in creatively adjusting and planning for the short and long-term impact of the pandemic on resident education. This experience shows how the residency educational paradigm was shifted during a pandemic and can serve as a template to address future disruptions.     

Results of and comments on the 2000 survey of the American Association of Academic Chief Residents in Radiology

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The American Association of Academic Chief Residents in Radiology (A3CR2) annually surveys radiology residency programs on issues related to training. The objective is to highlight national similarities, differences, and trends to help programs establish standards and improve residency training. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Questionnaires were mailed to 180 accredited diagnostic radiology residency training programs in the United States. The survey covered the usual general topics and more specific topics considered every 4 years; for 2000 the latter were on-call issues and the chief residency year. RESULTS: Completed surveys were returned from 63 programs (35%). Important findings included increased caseload and call commitments, especially for smaller programs. Resident salaries appear to have increased more than the consumer price index. Nonemergent after-hour coverage and teleradiology are now a large part of the resident work practice. Women continue to be underrepresented, with a trend downward. Chief residents are more involved in organizing preparation for board examinations and have greater office facilities and more administrative duties. CONCLUSION: This survey provided useful insights. All levels of residency face increased workloads. On-call hours have not changed, but the work has intensified and the use of teleradiology has increased. Many programs have adopted a "night-float" system, and nonemergent after-hours coverage should be considered in any program evaluation. Continued vigilance and sustained efforts are required to ensure that radiology is considered as a specialty by both men and women. With increased demands on attending physicians' time, chief residents may need to take on more administrative responsibilities.     

Self-subsidization of educational expenses by senior radiology residents

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study is to document the degree of self-subsidization of educational expenses by senior radiology residents. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Questionnaires were distributed to all radiology residents (n = 176) attending the New Jersey Medical School board review course held twice in 2006. Respondents (n = 175) documented the number and source of financial support for review courses they had or would attend, including the AFIP course in radiologic pathology. They also listed the amount of additional financial allowances paid to them by their programs and cited the funding source for the radiology board examinations. RESULTS: Average AFIP expenditure, including tuition, room, board, and travel, equaled 3,969 dollars +/- 45 dollars, of which 46% was paid by the residents themselves. The respondents attended, on average, two review courses costing 4,116 dollars +/- 149 dollars, bearing 77% of the costs. The average additional allowance paid to residents was 1,938 dollars +/- 156 dollars. Total board expenditures of 3,120 dollars, including fees and travel, were borne entirely by the residents. Total out-of-pocket expenses for these activities was 7,928 dollars +/- 165 dollars, which amounted to 16% of senior residents' average annual salary (49,746 dollars). CONCLUSION: The desire by both programs and trainees for success on the radiology board examination has stimulated the growth of review courses. The enduring popularity of the AFIP course has made this activity an essential rotation for most radiology residency programs. Each of these off-site opportunities incurs significant financial obligations to residents, and when added to the cost of the board exams, equals 16% of their average annual salary. Thus radiology residents are subsidizing their education to a considerable degree relative to their salaries. This study reveals that senior radiology residents significantly subsidize their education and bear the burden of hidden costs associated with their training.     

Computer-assisted scheduling of radiology resident call

The difficulties inherent in assigning an entire residency group fair and equivalent daily call prompted the development of a computerized scheduling program at The University of Texas at Houston. Written in COBOL, the program is run on a CDC mainframe computer. Logic parameters restrict the number and frequency of calls per month, and each resident is coded for five available call types at two university hospitals. The foundation of the program's operation is an arbitrary point scale applied to each call type determined by its difficulty and time commitment. Residents' point totals each month are roughly balanced within a prescribed range, with call exchanges made by the computer if necessary. The computer-generated schedules are flexible and equitable, require little manual correction, and save time for the chief resident and the residency secretary.     

Part I: preparing first-year radiology residents and assessing their readiness for on-call responsibilities

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study is to evaluate the effectiveness of an Emergency Radiology (ER) Core Curriculum training module and a Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM)-based interactive examination system to prepare first-year (postgraduate year 2 [PGY-2]) radiology residents and assess their readiness for taking overnight radiology call. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approval was obtained, and the study was compliant with Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) regulations. A dedicated month-long ER curriculum was designed to prepare new radiology residents for overnight radiology call that includes interpretation of off-hour urgent and emergent studies without immediate direct attending supervision. Lectures of the curriculum, provided by department staff, were based on the American Society of Emergency Radiology core curriculum. The lecture series was implemented after PGY-2 residents had completed formal introductory resident rotations during their first 6 months of training. A DICOM-based interactive computer-based testing module was developed and administered at the end of the lecture series. The module consisted of 19 actual emergency department cases with entire series of images, simulating an on-call setting. Tests were scored by two staff members blinded to resident identifying information. Upper-level residents also were tested, and comparison was made between first-year and upper-level resident test scores to determine the effectiveness of the test in determining first-year resident preparedness for call. Statistical analysis of results was performed by using t-test (P < .05). RESULTS: All residents in the residency program present during the month (nine PGY-2, six PGY-3, seven PGY-4, seven PGY-5 residents) attended the lecture series and finished the testing module at the end of the lecture series. Of 19 actual emergency cases on the testing module, five cases were neuroradiology, three cases were thoracic imaging, eight cases were body imaging, and three cases were musculoskeletal. PGY-2 residents scored an average of 73.0% (range, 63.2%-81.6%) of total points possible. PGY-3 residents scored an average of 76.8% (range, 68.4%-86.8%); PGY-4 residents scored an average of 77.4% (range, 65.8%-100%), and PGY-5 residents scored an average of 81.2% (range, 68.4%-94.7%). There was no statistically significant difference in scores according to level of training. CONCLUSION: First-year radiology residents who underwent 6 months of formal radiology training followed by an intensive ER lecture series before taking overnight call had scores similar to upper-level colleagues on an interactive computer-based ER simulation module.     

Are NBME examination scores useful in selecting radiology residency candidates?

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The quality of the graduates of radiology residency programs is powerfully affected by the quality of the candidates admitted to them, making the evaluation and ranking of residency applicants one of the most important tasks of radiology education. In the applicant evaluation process, evaluators frequently take into account applicants' scores on the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) examination, operating on the implicit assumption that these scores help predict future performance as residents. The purpose of this study was to test that assumption. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using a data set consisting of information about 99 residents admitted over a period of 10 residency class years, the authors compared scores for parts I and II of the NBME examination with later results on the American Board of Radiology (ABR) written and oral examinations. Logistic regression was used to model differences in resident performance on the NBME and ABR examinations and to determine whether variance in ABR results could be predicted by variance in NBME examination scores. RESULTS: The authors were unable to demonstrate any statistically significant value of NBME examination scores in predicting eventual performance on the ABR written and oral examinations. CONCLUSION: The authors' attempt to validate the widespread practice of using NBME examination scores to evaluate and rank applicants to radiology residency programs demonstrated no discernible value for these scores in predicting the success of residents on the ABR examinations.     

Resident experience in brachytherapy: An analysis of Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education case logs for intracavitary and interstitial brachytherapy from 2007 to 2018

PurposeWe sought to characterize temporal trends of radiation oncology resident–reported case experience with intracavitary brachytherapy (ICBT) and interstitial brachytherapy (ISBT).Methods and MaterialsSummarized, deidentified case logs for graduating radiation oncology residents (GRORs) between 2007 and 2018 were obtained from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education national summary data report. Cases were subdivided based on the site of treatment. Analysis of variance was used to determine differences, and strength of association was evaluated using the Pearson correlation.ResultsThe number of GRORs increased by 66% from 114 in 2007 to 189 in 2018 (p < 0.001). Average number of gynecologic ICBT cases per GROR increased, from 39.6 in 2007 to 48.7 in 2018 (p < 0.005). Average number of ISBT cases per GROR decreased, from 34.5 to 20.6 (p < 0.001), due to decreasing prostate volume, from 21.5 to 12 (p < 0.001). Experience with gynecologic ISBT cases remained low at an average of 4.5 cases per year.ConclusionsThe average number of ICBT cases per GROR has increased, although this does not differentiate between cylinder and tandem-based insertions currently. There has been a steady decline in ISBT experience. These findings may have implications for the development of Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education case minimums for residency programs.     

2003 AUR Joseph E. And Nancy O. Whitley Award. Developing tomorrow's academic radiologists: a 3-month residency elective in education

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The shortage of academic radiologists reveals an urgent need to attract more residents into academic careers. A great deal of attention has been focused on research, but few programmatic initiatives have addressed the development of the next generation of radiology educators. The purpose of this study was to develop and test a new 3-month residency elective in education. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A large academic radiology department developed a 3-month education elective, during which two residents would be relieved of clinical duties and focus full-time on tasks related to their development as educators, including the completion of a major educational project. RESULTS: Two residents, in their 3rd year and 4th year of residency, respectively, proposed to collaborate in developing a Web-delivered tutorial for the department's senior medical student clerkship. At the end of 3 months, their radiology tutorial was introduced. In its 1st month, it received a mean rating of 4.3 on a five-point scale. The residents stated that the elective had enabled them to develop important skills in instructional technology, put into practice their enhanced understanding of learning psychology, and substantially strengthened their overall commitment to academic careers. CONCLUSION: It is vital that residency programs focus on developing the next generation of radiology educators. This ongoing education elective represents one successful model.     

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.     

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.