Technology-Assisted Virtual Consultation for Medical Imaging

PurposeThe aim of this study was to report the investigators’ preliminary experience in the implementation of a “virtual consult” (VC) system enabling consultations between radiologists and referring physicians in physically remote locations throughout their enterprise.MethodsReferrers and radiologists directly access the VC through the electronic medical record and PACS, respectively. Referrers may click a VC link associated with any examination report to instant message the appropriate subspecialist radiologist, who receives an alert allowing automatic loading of the examination. The radiologist and referrer may then discuss the examination via instant messaging as well as launch a real-time screen-share of the radiologist’s PACS display, with the option for either participant to control the display. Radiologists’ and referrers’ feedback was evaluated after the institution’s first 110 VC sessions.ResultsReferrers’ most common specialties were emergency medicine (27.3%) and internal medicine (13.6%); radiologists’ most common subspecialties were abdominal (33.6%) and thoracic (16.4%) imaging. Screen-shares lasted on average 12 ± 16 minutes. From 80% to 90% of referrers agreed that the VC was easy to use, improved their understanding of the radiology report, affected patient management, and enhanced radiologists’ role. Referrers found the VC to be particularly useful when traditional consultation was difficult because of location or time constraints or when seeking a quick response to a targeted question. Radiologists recognized referrers’ positive response to the VC, although they tended to view the VC as disruptive to normal workflow.ConclusionsThe VC addresses a key challenge in the current era of digital radiology practice and provides added value to referrers, though continued radiologists’ workflow optimization is warranted.     

Radiology Practice Consolidation: Fewer but Bigger Groups Over Time

PurposeThe aim of this study was to assess recent trends in US radiology practice consolidation.MethodsRadiologist practice characteristics were obtained from the Medicare Physician Compare database for 2014 and 2018. Radiologists were classified on the basis of their largest identifiable practice affiliations. Single-specialty radiology practices were identified using practice names. Temporal trends in practice sizes were assessed.ResultsAt the individual radiologist level from 2014 to 2018, the fraction of all radiologists in groups with 1 or 2 members declined from 3.2% to 2.1%, 3 to 9 members from 10.2% to 6.7%, 10 to 24 members from 18.2% to 14.1%, 25 to 49 members from 16.6% to 15.1%, and 50 to 99 members from 13.3% to 11.5%. In contrast, the fraction in groups with 100 to 499 members increased from 15.7% to 21.8% and with ≥500 members from 22.9% to 28.7%. At the practice level, the fraction of all radiologists’ practices with 1 or 2 members decreased from 26.9% to 22.8%, whereas the fraction with 100 to 499 members increased from 7.6% to 10.2% and with ≥500 members from 2.5% to 4.1%. Similar shifts were present for single-specialty radiology practices and all geographic regions nationally. The 30,492 radiologists identified in 2014 were affiliated with 4,908 group practices, including 2,812 single-specialty practices. In comparison, the 32,096 radiologists identified in 2018 were affiliated with 4,193 group practices (a 14.6% decline), including 2,216 single-specialty practices (a 21.2% decline).ConclusionsIn very recent years, the US radiologist workforce has consolidated, leading to increased practice sizes and a substantial decline in the number of distinct practices, disproportionately affecting single-specialty radiology practices. The impact of this consolidation on cost, quality, and patient access merits further attention.     

From shared data to sharing workflow: Merging PACS and teleradiology

Due to a host of technological, interface, operational and workflow limitations, teleradiology and PACS/RIS were historically developed as separate systems serving different purposes. PACS/RIS handled local radiology storage and workflow management while teleradiology addressed remote access to images. Today advanced PACS/RIS support complete site radiology workflow for attending physicians, whether on-site or remote. In parallel, teleradiology has emerged into a service of providing remote, off-hours, coverage for emergency radiology and to a lesser extent subspecialty reading to subscribing sites and radiology groups.When attending radiologists use teleradiology for remote access to a site, they may share all relevant patient data and participate in the site's workflow like their on-site peers. The operation gets cumbersome and time consuming when these radiologists serve multi-sites, each requiring a different remote access, or when the sites do not employ the same PACS/RIS/Reporting Systems and do not share the same ownership. The least efficient operation is of teleradiology companies engaged in reading for multiple facilities. As these services typically employ non-local radiologists, they are allowed to share some of the available patient data necessary to provide an emergency report but, by enlarge, they do not share the workflow of the sites they serve.Radiology stakeholders usually prefer to have their own radiologists perform all radiology tasks including interpretation of off-hour examinations. It is possible with current technology to create a system that combines the benefits of local radiology services to multiple sites with the advantages offered by adding subspecialty and off-hours emergency services through teleradiology. Such a system increases efficiency for the radiology groups by enabling all users, regardless of location, to work “local” and fully participate in the workflow of every site. We refer to such a system as SuperPACS.     

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.     

Multi-detector computed tomography and 3-dimensional imaging in a multi-vendor picture archiving and communications systems (PACS) environment

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To show the impact of the introduction of multi-detector computed tomography (CT) on radiologic workflow and to demonstrate how this reflects on picture archiving and communications systems (PACS) requirements. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Production measurements were obtained from different CT scanners (first two single-slice CT scanners; from December 2001 single and 4-slice CT; from April 2002 single and 16-slice CT) in number of patients from the radiologic information system. Implications on our PACS were recorded in terms of images and studies stored. Furthermore, our PACS design was made so that optimal use of 3-dimensional imaging within the radiologic workflow was possible. Finally, the number of non-diagnosed studies were recorded every day since the start of the transition to a filmless radiology department. RESULTS: This PACS design achieved a high level of integration between simple viewing and advanced 3-dimensional imaging and is optimized for handling large amounts of data. Overall increase of patients scanned with CT from January 2002-December 2003 was 54%. The number of series increased by 286% from December 2001-April 2003 and by 130% from April 2002-December 2003. From January 2002-February 2003, the number of images per patient increased from 175 to 450 (157%). Non-diagnosed studies decreased from about 100-120 before to practically zero after PACS implementation. CONCLUSION: PACS significantly increases productivity because of availability of the images and elimination of certain manual tasks. These results show that although the amount of examinations increases significantly with the introduction of MDCT, simultaneous introduction of PACS and filmless operation allows radiologists to handle the growth in workload.     

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.     

The Current State of Teleradiology Across the United States: A National Survey of Radiologists’ Habits,Attitudes, and Perceptions on Teleradiology Practice

PurposeTo explore the current state of teleradiology practice, defined as the interpretation of imaging examinations at a different facility from where the examination was performed.MethodsA national survey addressing radiologists’ habits, attitudes, and perceptions regarding teleradiology was distributed by e-mail to a random sample of ACR members in early 2019.ResultsAmong 731 of 936 respondents who indicated a non-teleradiologist primary work setting, 85.6% reported performing teleradiology within the past 10 years and 25.4% reported that teleradiology represents a majority of their annual imaging volumes; 84.4% performed teleradiology for internal examinations and 45.7% for external examinations; 46.2% performed teleradiology for rural areas and 37.2% for critical access hospitals; 91.3% performed teleradiology during weekday normal business hours and 44.5% to 79.6% over evening, overnight, and weekend hours. In all, 76.9% to 86.2% perceived value from teleradiology for geographic, after-hours, and multispecialty coverage, as well as reduced interpretation turnaround times. The most common challenges for teleradiology were electronic health record access (62.8%), quality assurance (53.8%), and technologist proximity (48.4%). The strategy most commonly considered useful for improving teleradiology was technical interpretation standards (33.3%). Radiologists in smaller practices were less likely to perform teleradiology or performed teleradiology for lower fractions of work, were less likely to experience coverage advantages of teleradiology, and reported larger implementation challenges, particularly relating to electronic health records and prior examination access.ConclusionDespite historic concerns, teleradiology is widespread throughout modern radiology practice, helping practices achieve geographic, after-hours, and multispecialty coverage; reducing turnaround times; and expanding underserved access. Nonetheless, quality assurance of offsite examinations remains necessary. IT integration solutions could help smaller practices achieve teleradiology’s benefits.     

Use of a PACS Embedded System for Communicating Radiologist to Technologist Learning Opportunities and Patient Callbacks

ObjectiveThis study aimed to determine effect of modality, care setting, and radiology subspecialty on frequency of diagnostic image quality issues identified by radiologists during image interpretation.MethodsThis Institutional Review Board-exempt retrospective study was performed 10/1/18-6/30/20 at an academic radiology practice performing 700,000+ examinations annually. A closed-loop communication tool integrated in PACS workflow enabled radiologists to alert technologists to image quality issues. Radiologists categorized communications as requiring patient callback, or as technologist learning opportunities if image quality was adequate to generate a diagnostic report. Fisher's exact test assessed impact of imaging modality, radiology subspecialty, and care setting on radiologist-identified image quality issues.Results976,915 imaging examinations were performed during the study period. Radiologists generated 1,935 technologist learning opportunities (0.20%) and 208 callbacks (0.02%). Learning opportunity rates were highest for MRI (0.60%) when compared to CT (0.26%) and radiography (0.08%) (p<0.0001). The same was true for patient callbacks (MRI 0.13%, CT 0.02%, radiography 0.0006%; p<0.0001). Outpatient examinations generated more learning opportunities (1479/637,092; 0.23%) vs. inpatient (305/200,206; 0.15%) and Emergency Department (151/139,617; 0.11%) (p<0.0001). Abdominal subspecialists were most likely to generate learning opportunities when compared to other subspecialists and cardiovascular imagers were most likely to call a patient back.ConclusionsImage quality issues identified by radiologists during the interpretation process were rare and 10 times more commonly categorized as learning opportunities not interfering with a clinically adequate report than as requiring patient callback. Further work is necessary to determine if creating learning opportunities leads to fewer patients requiring repeat examinations.     

Quality Measurements in Radiology: A Systematic Review of the Literature and Survey of Radiology Benefit Management Groups

PurposeAs the US health care system transitions toward value-based reimbursement, there is an increasing need for metrics to quantify health care quality. Within radiology, many quality metrics are in use, and still more have been proposed, but there have been limited attempts to systematically inventory these measures and classify them using a standard framework. The purpose of this study was to develop an exhaustive inventory of public and private sector imaging quality metrics classified according to the classic Donabedian framework (structure, process, and outcome).MethodsA systematic review was performed in which eligibility criteria included published articles (from 2000 onward) from multiple databases. Studies were double-read, with discrepancies resolved by consensus. For the radiology benefit management group (RBM) survey, the six known companies nationally were surveyed. Outcome measures were organized on the basis of standard categories (structure, process, and outcome) and reported using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.ResultsThe search strategy yielded 1,816 citations; review yielded 110 reports (29 included for final analysis). Three of six RBMs (50%) responded to the survey; the websites of the other RBMs were searched for additional metrics. Seventy-five unique metrics were reported: 35 structure (46%), 20 outcome (27%), and 20 process (27%) metrics. For RBMs, 35 metrics were reported: 27 structure (77%), 4 process (11%), and 4 outcome (11%) metrics. The most commonly cited structure, process, and outcome metrics included ACR accreditation (37%), ACR Appropriateness Criteria (85%), and peer review (95%), respectively.ConclusionsImaging quality metrics are more likely to be structural (46%) than process (27%) or outcome (27%) based (P < .05). As national value-based reimbursement programs increasingly emphasize outcome-based metrics, radiologists must keep pace by developing the data infrastructure required to collect outcome-based quality metrics.     

Möglichkeiten der Optimierung des Workflows in radiologischen Abteilungen jenseits von RIS und PACS

Technological progress and the rising cost pressure on the healthcare system have led to a drastic change in the work environment of radiologists today. The pervasive demand for workflow optimization and increased efficiency of its activities raises the question of whether by employment of electronic systems, such as RIS and PACS, the potentials of digital technology are sufficiently used to fulfil this demand. This report describes the tasks and structures in radiology departments, which so far are only insufficiently supported by commercially available electronic systems but are nevertheless substantial. We developed and employed a web-based, integrated workplace system, which simplifies many daily tasks of departmental organization and administration apart from well-established tasks of documentation. Furthermore, we analyzed the effects exerted on departmental workflow by employment of this system for 3 years.     

Face-to-Face: Resident-led Radiology Medicine Rounds Facilitate Evidence-based Processes for Clinical Decision Support

BackgroundThe transition toward value-based payment models increases focus on the radiologist's direct impact on hospital-provided patient care. Radiology trainees understand inpatient hospital workflows and decision-making paradigms and are well positioned to interface directly with hospital physicians regarding clinical decision making related to diagnostic imaging and/or image guided interventions. A radiology resident-led project with internal medicine residents focused on Clinical Decision Support was designed, implemented, and reviewed, with the objectives of educating clinical teams and positively impacting patient care.Materials and MethodsDuring the 2017-2018 academic year, senior radiology residents (PGY-5) led weekly rounds with medicine residents rotating through inpatient floor units. During these rounds, they discussed indications for and types of hospital inpatient imaging studies, exchanged clinical information, directed further imaging workup, and taught the essentials of image interpretation. Participating medical residents’ degree of radiology-awareness and opinions were systematically surveyed at the conclusion of the academic year. Thirty-four out of a total of 161 (21%) Internal Medicine residents responded to the survey. Thirty one percent of these residents could identify an instance where radiology-led rounds altered patient management and 94% acknowledged an increase in medical knowledge. Sixty-one percent believed evidence-based choice for imaging orders was enhanced by attending radiology-led rounds and 64% developed a better understanding of resources available to guide image ordering. Forty-nine percent of residents made suggestions to their Internal Medicine attending physician or more senior trainee or otherwise applied something learned during radiology-led rounds and 42% cancelled or ordered a study based on what they learned or discussed in radiology rounds. Thirty-nine percent of medicine residents stated that these rounds changed their perception of the role of the radiologist and 75% expressed the desire to see increased participation by radiologists in their daily workflow. Radiology resident-led educational medicine rounds promote cross-specialty collaboration, further educate trainees, and directly affect patient management. It is therefore valuable for radiology trainees to directly engage in the teaching of other medical providers, to enhance their own consultative skill set, promote face-to-face interactions with other physicians, and to directly impact patient care.     

Radiology in Medical Education: A Pediatric Radiology Elective as a Template for Other Radiology Courses

PurposeTraditionally, the pediatric radiology elective for medical students and pediatric residents constituted a morning teaching session focused mainly on radiography and fluoroscopy. A more structured elective was desired to broaden the exposure to more imaging modalities, create a more uniform educational experience, and include assessment tools.MethodsIn 2012, an introductory e-mail and formal syllabus, including required reading assignments, were sent to participants before the start date. A rotating weekly schedule was expanded to include cross-sectional imaging (ultrasound, CT, MR) and nuclear medicine. The schedule could accommodate specific goals of the pediatric resident or medical student, as requested. Starting in 2013, an online pre-test and post-test were developed, as well as an online end-of-rotation survey specific to the pediatric radiology elective. Taking the Image Gently pledge was required. A scavenger hunt tool, cue cards, and electronic modules were added.ResultsPre-test and post-test scores, averaged over 2 years, showed improvement in radiology knowledge, with scores increasing by 27% for medical students and 21% for pediatric residents. Surveys at the end of the elective were overwhelmingly positive, with constructive criticism and complimentary comments.ConclusionsWe have successfully created an elective experience in radiology that dedicates time to education while preserving the workflow of radiologists. We have developed tools to provide a customized experience with many self-directed learning opportunities. Our tools and techniques are easily translatable to a general or adult radiology elective.     

Medicolegal training in radiology; an overlooked component of the non-interpretive skills curriculum

ObjectiveRadiologists comprise approximately 3.6% of US physicians while ranked 6th–8th in medicolegal claims. Studies suggest that by the age of 60, about half of all radiologists will be sued at least once. Given this likelihood, it is surprising how little attention is paid to teaching of medicolegal issues. It is hypothesized that most trainees emerge from residency with only a vague notion of the medicolegal issues inherent in radiology.MethodsAll of the radiology attendings, trainees and alumni in our tertiary care teaching hospital were surveyed via an electronic questionnaire. Respondents were surveyed on overall knowledge of job-related medicolegal issues and willingness to receive additional education. The survey also included two real life medicolegal scenarios and the radiologists were asked to choose the most likely outcome.ResultsA questionnaire was sent to total of 359 trainees, attendings and alumni. There were 168 responses, constituting a 46.7% response rate, F:M 48:112. Only 41% of the respondents were aware that by the age of 60, half of them would be involved in at least one lawsuit. All knew the most common causes of malpractice claims; however, one-fourth were not aware of available medicolegal resources offered by radiological organizations; 85% of the respondents expressed willingness to attend medicolegal CME courses. All residents surveyed believed that medicolegal lectures should be included in their didactics.ConclusionThere is a dearth of knowledge among radiologists on job-related medicolegal topics. This survey suggests that incorporating additional medicolegal topics into the non-interpretive skills curriculum of residents and medicolegal CME for graduates would be well received.     

The State of Radiologic Teaching Practice in Preclinical Medical Education: Survey of American Medical,Osteopathic, and Podiatric Schools

PurposeThis study describes the state of preclinical radiology curricula in North American allopathic, osteopathic, and podiatric medical schools.MethodsAn online survey of teaching methods, radiology topics, and future plans was developed. The Associations of American Medical Colleges, Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine, and Colleges of Podiatric Medicine listing for all US, Canadian, and Puerto Rican schools was used for contact information for directors of anatomy and/or radiology courses. Letters were sent via e-mail to 198 schools, with a link to the anonymous survey.ResultsOf 198 schools, 98 completed the survey (48%). Radiology curricula were integrated with other topics (91%), and taught by anatomists (42%) and radiologists (43%). The majority of time was spent on the topic of anatomy correlation (35%). Time spent teaching general radiology topics in the curriculum, such as physics (3%), modality differences (6%), radiation safety (2%), and contrast use (2%) was limited. Most schools had plans to implement an innovative teaching method in the near future (62%). The major challenges included limits on: time in the curriculum (73%); resources (32%); and radiology faculty participation (30%). A total of 82% reported that their curriculum did not model the suggestions made by the Alliance of Medical Student Educators in Radiology.ConclusionsThis survey describes the current state of preclinical radiology teaching: curricula were nonstandard, integrated into other courses, and predominantly used for anatomy correlation. Other important contextual principles of the practice of radiology were seldom taught.     

Population-Based Health Engagement Opportunities Through Breast Imaging: A Population-Based Cross-Sectional Survey

PurposeAs health care payment systems transition from fee-for-service to bundled payments, there is an increasing opportunity for radiologists to collaborate to improve population-based health care outcomes. Our purpose was to estimate the extent to which patients engaged in mammography underwent other additional imaging- and non-imaging-based preventative health services using Centers for Disease Control National Population Health Surveys.MethodsWomen aged 40 to 74 in the 2014 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System cross-sectional survey without histories of breast cancer who reported having a mammogram within the past 2 years were included. Adherence to recommended preventative services was based on US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendations, relative to the time at which the survey participant responded to the survey. Among women reporting being engaged in mammography, proportions of eligible women obtaining recommended preventative health services were calculated and stratified by demographics.ResultsOf 172,245 women, 122,434 (71.1%) reported mammography within 2 years. The following percentages obtained recommended flu vaccines (49.2%), pneumococcal vaccines (69.5%), colorectal cancer screening (74.8%), and Papanicolaou test (93.2%). Women reporting mammography within the last 2 years with lower levels of education and income and who lacked health insurance or personal doctors were less likely to report receiving recommended preventative services (P < .001).ConclusionsNational population-based survey results suggest that large proportions of women engaged in mammography report are not up to date with a wide variety of recommended preventative health services, suggesting ample opportunities for radiology practices to partner with providers to improve population-based health outcomes and add value to health care systems.     

Trends in Gender and Racial Profiles of US Academic Radiology Faculty

ObjectiveTo evaluate gender and racial profiles of US academic radiology faculty.Materials and MethodsThis is a retrospective analysis of the American Association of Medical College database of radiology faculty members from 2006 to 2017 by academic rank, chair position, race or ethnicity, and gender. The data were described with annual proportions and average annual counts and fit to a Poisson regression model. Comparison data were taken from American Association of Medical College on matriculants at US medical schools and from ACGME on radiology residents.ResultsWomen increased significantly in the ranks of professor by 4.5%, associate professor by 4.8%, and assistant professor by 4.8% (P < .05). Asian and multiple race non-Hispanic radiologists increased in the rank of professor by 5.9% and 3.1%, respectively (P < .05). Among department chairs, only women and Asian faculty increased by 6.4% and 7.5%, respectively (P < .05). The proportion of women chairs increased from 10.0% (19 of 191) in 2006 to 17.4% (39 of 224) in 2017. Black and Hispanic chairs collectively represented less than 10% of the total chairs every year.DiscussionThe significant percent annual increase in women faculty in academic ranks and chair positions suggests that the radiology faculty is becoming more diverse. However, the decreasing proportion of women with increasing academic ranks within each year of the study period suggests attrition or lack of promotion of women radiology faculty. The disparity in black and Hispanic faculty members and chairs suggests that emphasis should continue to be placed on tailored recruitment.     

Radiology Practices Employing Nurse Practitioners and Physician Assistants: Characteristics and Trends From 2017 Through 2019

PurposeThe number and roles of US nonphysician practitioners (NPPs) have expanded considerably, but little is known about their use by radiology practices. The authors assessed characteristics and trends of radiology practices employing Medicare-recognized NPPs.MethodsUsing Medicare databases from 2017 through 2019, the authors mapped all nurse practitioners and physician assistants (together “NPPs”) to employer groups for which all physicians were radiologists (“radiology practices”). Practices were characterized by size, geography, and radiologist characteristics. Temporal changes were assessed, and NPP employment likelihood was estimated using multivariate logistic regression modeling.ResultsAs the number of US radiology practices declined by 36.5% (from 2,643 to 1,679) between 2017 and 2019, the number employing NPPs increased by 10.5% (from 228 [8.6%] to 252 [15.0%]). The number of radiologists in NPP-employing practices increased by 10.4% (from 6,596 [35.1%] to 7,282 [40.0%]) as the number of radiology-employed NPPs increased by 17.5% (from 588 to 691). Practices were more likely to employ NPPs when medium (odds ratio [OR], 1.31) or large (OR, 1.25) in size, when urban located (OR, 1.35), and as their percentages of interventional radiologists increased (OR, 5.53 per percentage point) (P < .01 for all). Practices were less likely to employ NPPs as mean radiologist years since completing training increased (OR, 0.99 per year; P < .01).ConclusionsEmployment of NPPs by radiology practices has grown considerably in recent years, particularly in larger and urban practices and in those that employ more interventional and early-career radiologists. More work is necessary to better understand how this expanding use of NPPs affects the specialty.