Public Awareness of Interventional Radiology: Population-Based Analysis of the Current State of and Pathways for Improvement

PurposeTo evaluate the awareness of interventional radiology (IR) among the public and identify methods for improvement.Materials and MethodsParticipants (N = 1,000) were anonymously surveyed using Amazon’s Mechanical Turk crowdsourcing platform about medical and IR-specific knowledge, preferred methods of acquisition of medical information, and suggestions for improving awareness of IR. The survey consisted of 69 questions, including both Likert Scale and free text questions.ResultsOf the participants, 92% preferred undergoing a minimally invasive procedure over surgery. However, 39.8% recognized IR as a medical specialty, and less than 50% of these participants correctly identified IR as procedurally oriented. Of those who discussed or underwent an IR procedure (n = 113), most were also offered to undergo the procedure performed by a surgeon (n = 66). Furthermore, 71% (n = 20) of those who underwent the procedure performed by a surgeon reported that lack of awareness of IR played a role in their decision. Almost half of the respondents (n = 458) were interested in learning more about IR, particularly the diseases treated and procedures performed (42% and 37%, respectively). Short (<10-minute) educational videos and increased patient education by primary care providers (PCPs) were among the most suggested ways to improve awareness. Regarding the ambiguity of the name “interventional radiology,” most respondents (n = 555) reported this to be true, and “minimally invasive radiologist” was the most preferred alternative (21.18%).ConclusionsLack of awareness of IR may underlie underutilization. When presented with the knowledge that IR improves patient outcomes, minimally invasive procedures by an interventional radiologist are more often desired by the public than surgical options. Educational videos and patient education by PCPs may increase awareness of IR.     

Surveying Fourth-Year Medical Students Regarding the Choice of Diagnostic Radiology as a Specialty

PurposeThe aim of this study was to survey fourth-year medical students, both those choosing and those not choosing diagnostic radiology as their specialty, regarding factors influencing their choice of specialty and their perceptions of radiology.MethodsA voluntary anonymous online survey hyperlink was sent to 141 US medical schools for distribution to fourth-year students. Topics included demographics, radiology education, specialty choice and influencing factors, and opinions of radiology.ResultsA representative sampling (7%) of 2015 fourth-year medical students (n = 1,219; 51% men, 49% women) participated: 7% were applying in radiology and 93% were not. For respondents applying in radiology, the most important factor was intellectual challenge. For respondents applying in nonradiology specialties, degree of patient contact was the most important factor in the decision not to choose radiology; job market was not listed as a top-three factor. Women were less likely than men to apply in radiology (P < .001), with radiology selected by 11.8% of men (56 of 476) and only 2.8% of women (13 of 459). Respondents self-identifying as Asian had a significantly higher (P = .015) likelihood of selecting radiology (19 of 156 [12.2%]) than all other races combined (44 of 723 [6.1%]). Respondents at medical schools with required dedicated medical imaging rotations were more likely to choose radiology as a specialty, but most schools still do not require the clerkship (82%).ConclusionsThe reasons fourth-year medical students choose, or do not choose, diagnostic radiology as a specialty are multifactorial, but noncontrollable factors, such as the job market, proved less compelling than controllable factors, such as taking a radiology rotation.     

Patient and Provider Perspectives of Telehealth and In-Person Interventional Radiology Clinic Visits

PurposeTo assess patient and provider satisfaction with interventional radiology (IR) outpatient telehealth and in-person clinic.Materials and MethodsThis institutional review board–approved study analyzed patient satisfaction with clinic via survey after an IR outpatient telehealth or in-person visit. A physician telehealth experience survey was completed by 8 IR physicians.ResultsDuring the initial survey period, 44 (83%) of 53 patients completed a survey via telephone compared with 37 (23%) of 158 patients who were offered an electronic survey during the second survey period. Of 81 respondents, 18 (22%) were in-person and 63 (78%) were via telehealth. Of the respondents, nearly all patients (97%) in the telehealth group reported satisfaction with their telehealth clinic visit, with similar rates of high patient satisfaction between in-person and telehealth visits (P = .51). Most patients (98%) in the telehealth group strongly agreed that their physician’s recommendations were clear in the telehealth visit and that their visit was private, similar to in-person visits (P = .13). A telehealth visit saved time for all patients (100%), with 78% reporting >1 hour of time-saving. All IR physicians (n = 8) reported greater efficiency with telehealth clinic than with in-person clinic and that follow-up patterns would change if telehealth was available. However, all providers (100%) found telephone visits less satisfying than in-person visits, with video visits being either equally satisfying (71%) or less satisfying (29%).ConclusionsPatient satisfaction with the in-person and telehealth outpatient IR clinic was high, with patients and providers reporting time-saving and greater efficiency with telehealth, suggesting that telehealth should remain an important component of outpatient IR clinic care.     

Women in Radiology: Exploring the Gender Disparity

PurposeIn 2015, only 1.5% of female Canadian medical students pursued radiology as a specialty, versus 5.6% of men. The aim of this study was to determine what factors attract and deter Canadian medical students from pursuing a career in radiology, and why fewer women than men pursue radiology as a specialty.MethodsAn anonymous online survey was e-mailed to English-speaking Canadian medical schools, and 12 of 14 schools participated. Subgroup analyses for gender and radiology interest were performed using the Fisher exact test (P < .05).ResultsIn total, 917 students (514 women; 403 men) responded. Direct patient contact was valued by significantly more women who were not considering specialization in radiology (87%), compared with women who were (70%; P < .0001). Physics deterred more women (47%) than it did men (21%), despite similar educational backgrounds for the two gender groups in physical sciences (P < .0001). More women who were considering radiology as a specialty rated intellectual stimulation as being important to their career choice (93%), compared with women who were not (80%; P = .002). Fewer women who were not interested in radiology had done preclinical observerships in radiology (20%), compared with men who were not interested in radiology (28%; P = .04).ConclusionsA perceived lack of direct patient contact dissuades medical students from pursuing radiology as a career. Women have less preclinical radiology exposure than do men. Programs that increase preclinical exposure to radiology subspecialties that have greater patient contact should be initiated, and an effort to actively recruit women to such programs should be made.     

The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Diagnostic Radiology: A Survey at a Single Radiology Residency Training Program

PurposeAdvances in artificial intelligence applied to diagnostic radiology are predicted to have a major impact on this medical specialty. With the goal of establishing a baseline upon which to build educational activities on this topic, a survey was conducted among trainees and attending radiologists at a single residency program.MethodsAn anonymous questionnaire was distributed. Comparisons of categorical data between groups (trainees and attending radiologists) were made using Pearson χ² analysis or an exact analysis when required. Comparisons were made using the Wilcoxon rank sum test when the data were not normally distributed. An α level of 0.05 was used.ResultsThe overall response rate was 66% (69 of 104). Thirty-six percent of participants (n = 25) reported not having read a scientific medical article on the topic of artificial intelligence during the past 12 months. Twenty-nine percent of respondents (n = 12) reported using artificial intelligence tools during their daily work. Trainees were more likely to express doubts on whether they would have pursued diagnostic radiology as a career had they known of the potential impact artificial intelligence is predicted to have on the specialty (P = .0254) and were also more likely to plan to learn about the topic (P = .0401).ConclusionsRadiologists lack exposure to current scientific medical articles on artificial intelligence. Trainees are concerned by the implications artificial intelligence may have on their jobs and desire to learn about the topic. There is a need to develop educational resources to help radiologists assume an active role in guiding and facilitating the development and implementation of artificial intelligence tools in diagnostic radiology.     

Patient Experience With Notification of Radiology Results: A Comparison of Direct Communication and Patient Portal Use

ObjectivePatients increasingly access radiology results through digital portals. We compared patient satisfaction and understanding of radiology results when received through an electronic patient portal versus direct communication from providers.MethodsPatients were invited to participate in an online survey within 7 days of undergoing a radiology examination. Participants received one of two survey versions, based on whether or not they viewed results in the patient portal. The associations between method of result notification and satisfaction with notification timing and self-reported understanding of results were evaluated using χ² tests and logistic regression.ResultsOf 1,005 survey respondents, 87.8% (882 of 1,005) reported having received their imaging test results, with 486 (48.4%) first being notified through the patient portal and 396 (39.4%) via direct provider communication. Patients reported high levels of satisfaction with timing regardless of whether they first received the results through the patient portal or through direct provider communication (88.8%-89.9%). Patients who first received their results through the patient portal reported a lesser degree of perceived understanding than those who first received their results through direct provider communication (26.7% versus 47.8%; P < .001). Patients were less likely to report clear understanding for advanced imaging (CT or MRI) than ultrasound or x-rays (29.3% versus 40.3% versus 38.2%, respectively; P = .02). Patient characteristics showed no association with understanding in multivariable analysis.ConclusionAs online portal release of radiology results to patients becomes commonplace, efforts may be warranted to improve patient experience when first receiving their radiology results online.     

Patient and Provider Feedback for Radiology Reports: Implementation of a Quality Improvement Project in a Multi-Institutional Setting

BackgroundRadiology does not routinely solicit feedback on radiology reports. The aim of the study is to report the feasibility and initial results of a multi-institutional quality improvement project implementing patient and provider feedback for radiology reports.MethodsA HIPAA-compliant, institutional review board–waived quality improvement effort at two institutions obtaining patient and provider feedback for radiology reports was implemented from January 2018 to May 2020.InterventionA two-question survey (quantitative review and open text box feedback) was embedded into the electronic health records for patients and providers. Text-based feedback was evaluated, and patterns of feedback were categorized: thoroughness of reports, error in reports, timeliness of reports, access to reports, desire for patient summary, and desire for key images. We performed the χ² test for categorical variables. P < .05 was considered significant.ResultsOf 367 responses, patients provided 219 of 367 (60%), and providers provided 148 of 367 (40%) of the feedback. A higher proportion of patients reported satisfaction with reports (76% versus 65%, P = .023) and provided more feedback compared with providers (71% versus 50%, P < .0001). Both patients and providers commented on the thoroughness of reports (12% of patients versus 9% of providers) and errors in reports (8% of patients and 9% of providers). Patients disproportionately commented on timeliness of reports (11%) and access to the reports (6%) compared with providers (3% each). In addition, 7% of patients expressed a desire for patient summaries.ConclusionReport-specific patient and provider feedback demonstrate the feasibility of embedding surveys into electronic medical records. Up to 9% of the feedback addressed an error in reports.     

Impact on Quality When Pediatric Urgent Care Centers Are Staffed With Radiology Technologists

PurposeThe proliferation of pediatric urgent care centers has increased the need for diagnostic imaging support, but the impact of employing radiology technologists at these centers is not known. The purpose of this study was to evaluate radiographic impact and quality at urgent care centers with and without radiology technologists.MethodsA retrospective case-control study was conducted comparing 235 radiographic examinations (study) performed without and 83 examinations (control) performed with a radiology technologist at the authors’ pediatric urgent care centers. Studies were evaluated for quality using a five-point, Likert-type scale (1 = poor, 5 = best) regarding field of view, presentation, and orthogonal view orientation. Studies were also evaluated for the incidence of positive results, need for repeat imaging, and discrepancies between initial study and follow-up.ResultsImaging quality comparisons between study and control groups were statistically different for field of view (3.98 versus 4.29, P = .014), presentation (4.39 versus 4.51, P = .045), and orthogonal view orientation (4.45 versus 4.69, P = .033). The incidence of repeat imaging was similar (4.7% versus 2.4%, P = 0.526), as well as the discrepancy rates (3.4 versus 2.4%, P = 1.00). The incidence of abnormal radiographic findings for the study and control groups was similar (40.9% versus 34.9%, P = .363).ConclusionsRadiography is an important triage tool at pediatric urgent care centers. It is imperative to have optimal radiographic imaging for accurate diagnosis, and imaging quality is improved when radiology technologists are available. If not feasible or cost prohibitive, it is important that physicians be given training opportunities to bridge the quality gap when using radiographic equipment and exposing children to radiation.     

Radiologists’ Experience With Patient Interactions in the Era of Open Access of Patients to Radiology Reports

PurposeThe aim of this study was to evaluate radiologists’ experiences with patient interactions in the era of open access of patients to radiology reports.MethodsThis prospective, nonrandom survey of staff and trainee radiologists (n = 128) at a single large academic institution was performed with approval from the institutional review board with a waiver of the requirement to obtain informed consent. A multiple-choice questionnaire with optional free-text comments was constructed with an online secure platform (REDCap) and distributed via departmental e-mail between June 1 and July 31, 2016. Participation in the survey was voluntary and anonymous, and responses were collected and aggregated via REDCap. Statistical analysis of categorical responses was performed with the χ² test, with statistical significance defined as P < .05.ResultsAlmost three-quarters of surveys (73.4% [94 of 128]) were completed. Staff radiologists represented 54.3% of survey respondents (51 of 94) and trainees 45.7% (43 of 94). Most respondents (78.7% [74 of 94]) found interactions with patients to be a satisfying experience. More than half of radiologists (54.3% [51 of 94]) desired more opportunities for patient interaction, with no significant difference in the proportion of staff and trainee radiologists who desired more patient interaction (56.9% [29 of 51] versus 51.2% [22 of 43], P = .58). Staff radiologists who specialized in vascular and interventional radiology and mammography were significantly more likely to desire more patient interaction compared with other specialists (77.8% [14 of 18] versus 45.5% [15 of 33], P = .03). Only 4.2% of radiologists (4 of 94) found patient interactions to be detrimental to normal workflow, with 19.1% of radiologists (18 of 94) reporting having to spend more than 15 min per patient interaction.ConclusionsMost academic staff and trainee radiologists would like to have more opportunities for patient interaction and consider patient interaction rarely detrimental to workflow.     

A Standardized Radiology Template Improves Incidental Adrenal Mass Follow-Up: A Prospective Effectiveness and Implementation Study

PurposeIncidental adrenal masses (IAMs) are common but rarely evaluated. To improve this, we developed a standardized radiology report recommendation template and investigated its implementation and effectiveness.MethodsWe prospectively studied implementation of a standardized IAM reporting template as part of an ongoing quality improvement initiative, which also included primary care provider (PCP) notifications and a straightforward clinical algorithm. Data were obtained via medical record review and a survey of radiologists. Outcomes included template adoption rates and acceptability (implementation measures), as well as the proportion of patients evaluated and time to follow-up (effectiveness outcomes).ResultsOf 4,995 imaging studies, 200 (4.0%) detected a new IAM. The standardized template was used in 54 reports (27.0%). All radiologists surveyed were aware of the template, and 91% affirmed that standardized recommendations are useful. Patients whose reports included the template were more likely to have PCP follow-up after IAM discovery compared with those with no template (53.7% versus 36.3%, P = .03). After adjusting for sex, current or prior malignancy, and provider ordering the initial imaging (PCP, other outpatient provider, or emergency department or inpatient provider), odds of PCP follow-up remained 2.0 times higher (95% confidence interval 1.02-3.9). Patients whose reports included the template had a shorter time to PCP follow-up (log-rank P = .018). PCPs ultimately placed orders for biochemical testing (35.2% versus 18.5%, P = .01), follow-up imaging (40.7% versus 23.3%, P = .02), and specialist referral (22.2% versus 4.8%, P < .01) for a higher proportion of patients who received the template compared with those who did not.ConclusionsUse of a standardized template to communicate IAM recommendations was associated with improved IAM evaluation. Our template demonstrated high acceptability, but additional strategies are necessary to optimize adoption.     

Radiology departmental policy compliance with Swedish guidelines regarding post-contrast acute kidney injury for examinations with iodinated contrast media

IntroductionGuidelines concerning intravenous iodinated contrast media (CM) during computed tomography (CT) examinations are important to follow to minimize the risk for post-contrast acute kidney injury (PC-AKI). The purpose of this study was to investigate the radiology departmental policy compliance with Swedish guidelines concerning PC-AKI.MethodsIn February 2020, an electronic survey was distributed to the responsible radiographer at 41 radiology departments in all university hospitals and medium-sized hospitals in Sweden. The questions focused on routines around renal functional tests, individualized contrast administration and handling of patients with diabetes mellitus taking metformin.ResultsThe response rate was 83%. Seventy-six percent (n = 26) of radiology departments calculated estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) from serum creatinine prior to CM administration, but only 24% (n = 8) followed the recommendation to calculate eGFR from both serum creatinine and cystatin C. For acute/inpatients, 55% (n = 18) followed the recommendation that renal functional tests should be performed within 12 h before CM administration. For elective patients, 97% (n = 33) followed the recommendation to have eGFR newer than three months which is acceptable for patients with no history of disease that may have affected renal function. Approximately 80% of the radiology departments followed the recommendation that CM dose always should be individually adjusted to patient eGFR. Seventy-six percent (n = 26) followed the recommendation to continue with metformin at eGFR ≥ 45 ml/min.ConclusionCompliance with the national guidelines was high regarding routines around renal functional tests, dose adjustment of CM and metformin discontinuation. Improvements can be made in using both cystatin C and serum creatinine for eGFR calculations as well as ensuring renal function tests within 12 h for acute/inpatients with acute disease that may affect renal function.Implications for practiceThis study raises awareness of the importance of adhering to guidelines in healthcare. To have knowledge about the current level of compliance regarding PCI-AKI is important to maintain and develop effective clinical implementation of guidelines. The variation in practice seen in this study emphasizes the need of more effective implementation strategies to ensure adherence with best practice.     

Proctoring of New Emergency Radiologists to Promote Clinical Excellence and Ensure Quality of Care

PurposeThe authors’ institution provides 24/7 attending radiologist final interpretations for all emergency, urgent, and inpatient studies. As a supplement to the existing emergency radiology faculty, the institution relies on two groups of radiologists to provide final imaging interpretations after hours: radiology fellows (RFs) and newly hired subspecialty radiologists (NRs). For both groups, subspecialty services provide overreads the following day to improve the skills of the staff members and ensure clinical excellence. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical significance and rate of discrepancies between RFs and NRs.MethodsA retrospective review of all overreads from July 1, 2012, to June 30, 2015, was performed. Discrepancy rates for RFs and NRs were calculated. Error significance for cases requiring addenda was categorized as follows: acute, likely malignant, indeterminate, unlikely to be of clinical significance, insignificant typographic error, or significant typographic error.ResultsIn total, 10,796 studies were rechecked, of which 1.9% (n = 205) required addenda, 3.6% (n = 384) were deemed addendum-optional, and 94.5% (n = 10,207) required no comments. There was no significant difference in cases requiring addenda (RFs, 1.7% [119 of 6,847]; NRs, 2.2% [86 of 3,949]; P = .11). Of the 205 cases requiring addenda, 21.0% (n = 43) were deemed to be acute, 4.9% (n = 10) likely malignant, 28.3% (n = 58) indeterminate, 32.7% (n = 67) unlikely to be of clinical significance, and 13.1% (n = 27) secondary to typographic errors (66.7% [n = 18] deemed to be significant).ConclusionsAfter-hours coverage with RFs and NRs allows high-quality final, actionable interpretations with low discrepancy rates and no significant difference between both groups for addendum-needed cases. The program strikes a balance between the need for timely interpretations and the need to continually monitor and improve the quality of interpretations through subspecialist feedback.     

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.     

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.     

Perspectives on the Value of Advanced Medical Imaging: A National Survey of Primary Care Physicians

PurposeTo understand perceptions of primary care physicians (PCPs) about the value of advanced medical imaging.MethodsA national quantitative survey of 500 PCPs was conducted using an online self-administered questionnaire. Questions focused on advanced medical imaging (CT, MRI, and PET) and its perceived impact on the delivery of patient care. Responses were stratified by physician demographics.ResultsLarge majorities of the PCPs indicated that advanced imaging increases their diagnostic confidence (441; 88%); provides data not otherwise available (451; 90%); permits better clinical decision making (440; 88%); increases confidence in treatment choices (438; 88%), and shortens time to definitive diagnosis (430; 86%]). Most (424; 85%) believe that patient care would be negatively affected without access to advanced imaging. PCPs whose clinical careers predated the proliferation of advanced imaging modalities (>20 years of practice) assigned higher value to advanced imaging on several dimensions compared with younger physicians whose training overlapped widespread technology availability.ConclusionsBy a variety of metrics, large majorities of PCPs believe that advanced medical imaging provides considerable value to patient care. Those whose careers predated the widespread availability of advanced imaging tended to associate it with even higher value.     

Distal Radial Artery Access for Noncoronary Endovascular Treatment Is a Safe and Feasible Technique

PurposeTo evaluate safety and feasibility of distal radial artery (DRA) access for noncoronary interventional radiology procedures.Materials and MethodsAll interventional radiology procedures by means of DRA puncture from July 2017 to August 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. Eighty-two punctures in 56 patients were included, mostly in male patients (84% vs 16%). Mean age was 67.8 years (range, 33.3–87.3 years); mean height was 172 cm (range, 142–190 cm); and mean weight was 83 kg (range, 43–120 kg). Procedural characteristics, technical success, and complication rates were gathered from the medical records and follow-up ultrasound when available. Prerequisites for DRA access were adequate radioulnar collateral circulation, sufficient radial artery diameter, and informed consent in patients initially intended for conventional transradial access.ResultsProcedures included transarterial chemoembolization (n = 34), yittrium-90 pretreatment angiography (n = 21), yittrium-90 administration (transarterial radioembolization; n = 20), and embolization of visceral organs (n = 7). Both 4-Fr (n = 35) and 5-Fr (n = 46) sheaths were used. Technical success of DRA access was 97.6%, with conversion to transfemoral access in 2 cases (2.4%). No major complications were reported as a result of DRA access.ConclusionDRA access is a feasible and safe technique for abdominal interventional radiology embolization procedures. No radial artery occlusion or other major complications were observed in patients who underwent follow-up ultrasound.     

Factors Affecting Adherence to Recommendations for Additional Imaging of Incidental Findings in Radiology Reports

ObjectiveTo determine the rate at which recommendations for additional imaging (RAIs) of incidental findings on CT are adhered to at a tertiary-care medical center and what factors influence adherence.MethodsWe used a radiology clinical informatics tool (mPower, Nuance Communications Inc, Burlington, Massachusetts) to identify RAIs in reports from all CT examinations performed at a tertiary-care medical center during a 6-month period. For those studies in which the RAI was for incidental findings, we reviewed the patients’ charts to determine if there was appropriate follow-up of the lesion in question.ResultsThe overall rate of adherence to RAIs was 39.1%, and in patients with a same-institution primary care provider (PCP), 56.8% (P < .0001). Adherence was higher in studies ordered in the outpatient setting (P < .0001) and in patients with a same-institution PCP (P < .0001). Among patients with a same-institution PCP, adherence was highest for outpatients (66.7%), followed by patients seen in the emergency department (46.0%) and inpatients (36.0%). Among outpatients, adherence was highest with PCPs (67%) followed by internal medicine subspecialties (50%) and surgery (38%).DiscussionThe rate of adherence to recommendations for additional imaging of incidental findings was 39.1% in this study and higher for patients with a same-institution PCP, studies ordered in the outpatient setting, and in studies ordered by PCPs.     

Patients Prefer Results From the Ordering Provider and Access to Their Radiology Reports

PurposeImaging results are generally communicated to patients by referring providers. Directly communicating results has been suggested as a way for radiologists to add value, though few studies have investigated patients’ preferences in this regard. The aim of this study was to determine patients’ preferences for receiving their imaging results.MethodsIn this institutional review board-approved study, adult outpatients undergoing CT or MRI at an academic medical center and an affiliated county hospital over a 4-week period (n = 2,483) were surveyed. The survey assessed patients’ preferred delivery method for radiology results and their understanding of radiologists’ education and role.ResultsA total of 617 surveys (25% response rate) were completed, 475 (77%) and 142 (23%) by academic medical center and county hospital patients, respectively. Among all respondents, the majority of patients (387 of 617 [63%]) preferred models of results delivery centered on the referring physician as opposed to the radiologist. Regardless of who verbally relayed the results, 64% of all respondents (398 of 617) wanted the option to receive a copy of the report, and 522 of 614 (85%) wanted to see their images. Among patients wanting copies of their reports, academic medical center patients expressed equal interest in mail, e-mail, and online portal options (33%, 31%, and 36%, respectively), and county hospital patients preferred mail (55%, 28%, and 17%, respectively) (P < .001).ConclusionsPatients prefer receiving their imaging results through their referring providers. Many patients would also like to view their images and receive copies of their reports, potential avenues through which radiologists could add value.     

Comprehensive Health Care Economics Curriculum and Training in Radiology Residency

PurposeTo investigate the ability to successfully develop and institute a comprehensive health care economics skills curriculum in radiology residency training utilizing didactic lectures, case scenario exercises, and residency miniretreats.MethodsA comprehensive health care economics skills curriculum was developed to significantly expand upon the basic ACGME radiology residency milestone System-Based Practice, SBP2: Health Care Economics requirements and include additional education in business and contract negotiation, radiology sales and marketing, and governmental and private payers’ influence in the practice of radiology.ResultsA health care economics curriculum for radiology residents incorporating three phases of education was developed and implemented. Phase 1 of the curriculum constituted basic education through didactic lectures covering System-Based Practice, SBP2: Health Care Economics requirements. Phase 2 constituted further, more advanced didactic lectures on radiology sales and marketing techniques as well as government and private insurers’ role in the business of radiology. Phase 3 applied knowledge attained from the initial two phases to real-life case scenario exercises and radiology department business miniretreats with the remainder of the radiology department.ConclusionA health care economics skills curriculum in radiology residency is attainable and essential in the education of future radiology residents in the ever-changing climate of health care economics. Institution of more comprehensive programs will likely maximize the long-term success of radiology as a specialty by identifying and educating future leaders in the field of radiology.