Do radiologists use the American College of Radiology Musculoskeletal Appropriateness Criteria?

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the proportion of radiologists in three different radiology organizations who report using the American College of Radiology (ACR) musculoskeletal appropriateness criteria. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Radiologists from the Society of Skeletal Radiology, Georgia Radiological Society, and Utah Radiological Society were surveyed regarding their use of the ACR musculoskeletal appropriateness criteria. The surveys were carried out during 1998 and data were collected using written survey forms, telephone, and fax. RESULTS: The overall survey response rate was 298 (64%) of 465. Overall, 30% of respondents reported using the musculoskeletal appropriateness criteria. The proportion of respondents who used the musculoskeletal criteria was not different across the three organizations or for private practice compared with academic radiologists. CONCLUSION: The proportion of radiologists who report using the ACR musculoskeletal radiology appropriateness criteria is low. This result is consistent with other reports in the literature that show little impact on the practice of physicians after the distribution of written practice guidelines.     

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

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

Verification of the biological weapons convention: what is needed?

The lack of transparency and verification of the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) is one factor behind the current weakening of the ban on biological weapons. Despite recent setbacks, governments need to fill the verification gap so that violations of the BWC can be detected and deterred. Continued talks on a strong verification mechanism for the BWC should aim for an open verification regime and one that is flexible enough to adapt to new technical and political circumstances. Effective monitoring of compliance with the BWC will require concerted effort by governments and civil society.     

The new NHS colorectal cancer screening programme and the potential role of radiology?

The NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme is the first nationally coordinated screening programme to be introduced in the UK for 18 years. Currently, the screening algorithm is based upon faecal occult blood testing and colonoscopy for those screenees testing positive. This commentary provides radiologists with an update on the rationale for colorectal cancer screening, explains the organizational structure of the new UK NHS programme, and explores the possible role for radiology in the current and future screening algorithms.     

What’s in a Name? Report of the ACR Task Force on General Radiology and Multi-Subspecialization

The ACR Council passed Resolution 47 at its 2020 annual meeting establishing a representative task force (TF) to explore the concept of the “multispecialty radiologist,” previously proposed in 2012. The TF held eight virtual meetings over 8 months, considered data from a 2020 ACR Membership Tracking Survey, conducted a review of current literature, and collected anecdotal experience from TF members and ACR leadership. ACR legal counsel and a cross-section of ACR Commissions and Committees also provided input. The TF concluded that there is scant interest from the radiology community in the multispecialty radiologist title and no agreed-upon definition for the term. Radiologists may identify as diagnostic or subspecialty radiologists; however, the roles they fill in clinical practice include general, multispecialty, and subspecialized radiology. The TF proposes definitions for each of these terms to support radiologist recruitment aligned with optimal patient care in the practice community and to improve the quality of data collection about the field. To reduce ambiguity, the TF proposes adoption of the defined terms by the radiology community, including radiologist recruiters and employers, and suggests ways in which resident training and the ABR board examination can be adapted to support this new structure. Additionally, as part of an exploration of hyperspecialization and trainee preparedness for clinical practice, the TF discussed the challenges faced by community-based practices seeking to provide a full range of high-quality, radiologist-delivered diagnostic and interventional services to their patient populations.