Junior faculty satisfaction in a large academic radiology department

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Retention of academic faculty is a pressing issue for many radiology departments. The departure of junior faculty members to private practice may be driven in part by economics; however, the choice may be influenced by many other elements of faculty satisfaction. The purpose of this study was to evaluate how satisfied junior (assistant professors and instructors) and senior (associate professors and professors) faculty in an academic radiology department are with respect to their work and to determine which factors most affected the decision to stay in academics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a survey of junior and senior faculty in the department of radiology. Questions included attitudes regarding work, home, and family issues. Among the 27 junior faculty (73%) who responded to the survey, 14 were instructors and 13 were assistant professors. Among the 11 senior faculty (21%) who responded to the survey, 3 were associate professors and 8 were professors. RESULTS: Academic radiology faculty are very happy with work and derive enjoyment and fulfillment from their work. The working week excluding call (average 52 hours) and including call (average 61 hours) was not regarded as too long. The average academic faculty works 72% clinical time (range 15% to 100%) and gets 0.96 day a week of professional development. Fifty-nine percent are funded at an average of 0.91 day a week. Forty-one percent are on tenure track, and of the remainder, 40% expressed a desire for tenure track. Fifty-five percent of faculty have mentors and 57% receive adequate mentoring. When it comes to teaching, 50% have enough time to teach juniors. Of the remainder, all but one cited high clinical workload as an impediment to teaching juniors. Forty-one percent of faculty reported not getting enough academic time. Fifty-nine percent felt pressure to publish and 34% felt pressure to obtain external funding. Seventy-six percent surveyed felt it has become more difficult to publish. The main reasons cited were increasing clinical workload (34%), higher standards required (25%), lack of academic time (25%), and institutional review board constraints (16%). Twenty-eight percent of faculty work on research projects during weekends, 25% during professional development time, and 21% on weekday evenings. However, 63% said they had too little time to spend at home, with family, or on hobbies. The main reasons cited were demands on time caused by clinical work (45%), research (42%), and teaching (24%). Fifty-three percent said that their work regularly causes conflicts at home. CONCLUSIONS: The main reasons to stay in academics were the opportunity for teaching (68%), working with expert colleagues (58%), to pursue research (55%), and an interesting mix of cases (47%). Disincentives to stay in academics included insufficient financial remuneration (82%), the high clinical workload (45%), academic center "politics," and the lack of academic time (42%).     

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

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

Enhancing research in academic radiology departments: Recommendations of the 2003 Consensus Conference

Opportunities for funded radiologic research are greater than ever, and the amount of federal funding coming to academic radiology departments is increasing. Even so, many medical school-based radiology departments have little or no research funding. Accordingly, a consensus panel was convened to discuss ways to enhance research productivity and broaden the base of research strength in as many academic radiology departments as possible. The consensus panel included radiologists who have leadership roles in some of the most well-funded research departments, radiologists who direct other funded research programs, and radiologists with related expertise. The goals of the consensus panel were to identify the attributes associated with successful research programs and to develop an action plan for radiology research on the basis of these characteristics.     

Physician assistants in academic radiology: the harborview experience

We describe a model of how physician assistants can be used in an academic medical center to expand radiologist productivity, and to enhance the departmental academic and educational missions. At Harborview Medical Center, following a training program and graduated responsibility under supervision, physician assistants provide initial interpretation of radiology studies, consultation to referring physicians, and perform less complicated interventional procedures. Acceptance of physician assistants by the radiologists, radiology residents, and referring physicians has been high. Although the impact of physician assistants on departmental clinical productivity is difficult to measure, our data suggest that radiologists are more efficient when physician assistants are assigned to service, both in terms of numbers of studies interpreted, and timeliness of reporting and billing. As a result of the success of our program, we believe that physician assistants can have an important role in radiology practice.     

Motivation and compensation in academic radiology

As radiologists are increasingly faced with the challenges of rising demand for imaging services and staff shortages, the implementation of incentive plans in radiology is gaining importance. A key factor to be considered while developing an incentive plan is the strategic goal of the department. In academic radiology, management should decide whether it will reward research and teaching productivity in addition to clinical productivity. Various models have been suggested for incentive plans based on (1) clinical productivity, (2) multifactor productivity, (3) individual productivity, (4) section productivity, and (5) chair’s discretion. Although fiscal rewards are most common, managers should consider other incentives, such as research time, resources for research, vacation time, and recognition awards, because academic radiologists may be motivated by factors other than financial gains.     

Quantification of clinical consultations in academic emergency radiology

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study is to quantify the impact of clinical consultation on the workload of an academic emergency radiology section. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from a 7-day audit (24 h/d) of the number and length of clinical consultations was expressed as the mean number of consultations per 24 hours and consultation minutes per 24 hours. Consultations performed on images acquired from outside institutions were noted. The attending radiologist consultation fraction was defined as the attending consultation minutes per 24 hours divided by the number of minutes of attending coverage per 24 hours. Using annualized work relative value units per full-time employee (wRVU/FTE) over the 7 days, the consultation value unit per full-time employee (CVU/FTE) was defined and calculated as the consultation fraction multiplied by the annual wRVU/FTE. RESULTS: For the attending radiologists, the consultation fraction was 0.13 and the CVU/FTE was 1216. Twenty-two percent of the total consultation minutes were spent on studies performed outside our institution. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical consultation represents a significant portion of the workload in academic emergency radiology. The consultation fraction describes the fraction of the radiologist's time spent in consultation, and the CVU/FTE expresses the workload of clinical consultations in terms of wRVU/FTE, the factor used most commonly to determine the academic radiologist's productivity and staffing.     

Emergency department coverage by academic departments of radiology

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

The manpower crisis in academic radiology: don’t kill the milk cow for meat

There is a manpower crisis in academic radiology departments. These departments cannot sustain their academic missions from clinical revenues alone. Salaries can’ t be competitive with private practice, and the recruitment and retention of faculty members are compromised. The education of medical students, residents, and fellows and the clinical and basic research that sustains the specialty suffers. There is no simple remedy; academic departments need philanthropy from industry and private practice, more support from the government and the schools of medicine, and more efficient clinical practices. The future of our specialty is truly at stake. Academic departments are responsible for the great majority of training and technical innovation in the specialty. If academic departments cannot sustain their academic missions, the specialty of diagnostic radiology will certainly suffer.     

Online radiology appropriateness survey: results and conclusions from an academic internal medicine residency

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: This study was performed to evaluate the ability of medical trainees to choose appropriate diagnostic imaging studies for patients with various clinical indications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twelve clinical scenarios were excerpted from the 2000 edition of the American College of Radiology appropriateness criteria and arranged in multiple-choice question format. Summary answers based on the criteria were written. The questionnaire and answer key were placed online and linked; the answer key was viewable only after all 12 answers were submitted by the trainee. An invitation to participate in the online survey was forwarded to medical house staff. RESULTS: Sixty-five (43.3%) of 150 potential respondents completed the survey. The results were tabulated for all respondents and separately for each postgraduate-year class. Fewer than 50% of the respondents correctly answered more than half of the 12 questions. The average number of questions answered correctly by 1st-year residents was 7.02; by 2nd-year residents, 7.5; and by 3rd-year residents, 7.9. CONCLUSION: Medical house staff are not adequately prepared to choose appropriate imaging examinations for specific indications. Improvements in education could prevent inappropriate use of radiology resources. Imaging centers might want to consider developing online catalogs to assist clinicians in choosing appropriate imaging tests.     

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.     

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

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

Computational radiology in skeletal radiography

Recent years have brought rapid developments in computational image analysis in musculo-skeletal radiology. Meanwhile the algorithms have reached a maturity that makes initial clinical use feasible. Applications range from joint space measurement to erosion quantification, and from fracture detection to the assessment of alignment angles. Current results of computational image analysis in radiography are very promising, but some fundamental issues remain to be clarified, among which the definition of the optimal trade off between automatization and operator-dependency, the integration of these tools into clinical work flow and last not least the proof of incremental clinical benefit of these methods.     

Clinical operations management in radiology

Providing radiology services is a complex and technically demanding enterprise in which the application of operations management (OM) tools can play a substantial role in process management and improvement. This paper considers the benefits of an OM process in a radiology setting. Available techniques and concepts of OM are addressed, along with gains and benefits that can be derived from these processes. A reference framework for the radiology processes is described, distinguishing two phases in the initial assessment of a unit: the diagnostic phase and the redesign phase.