Integrated residency training leading to radiology and nuclear medicine board certification: the Arkansas experience

The pool of qualified nuclear medicine (NM) physicians is declining as fewer choose to enter the specialty. In June 2012, we began developing an integrated categorical residency training position satisfying the requirements of both the American Board of Radiology (ABR) and the American Board of Nuclear Medicine (ABNM). Termed "NuRad," this was listed and filled in the 2013 NRMP match. We found it to be more attractive to qualified applicants than our traditional, three year NM residency. This approach may play a significant role in the future in ensuring the training of physicians expert in NM and molecular imaging.

Interobserver agreement between radiologists and radiology residents and emergency physicians in the detection of PE using CTPA

OBJECTIVE

To assess interobserver agreement between thoracic radiologists, radiology residents, and emergency physicians in diagnosing pulmonary embolism (PE).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Emergency physicians, radiology residents, and thoracic radiologists evaluated 123 computed tomography pulmonary angiography images. Interobserver agreement was analysed using kappa statistics.

RESULTS

Very good agreements were observed between thoracic radiologists and radiology residents (0.81 and 0.82). Fair and moderate agreements (0.39 and 0.42) were demonstrated between emergency physicians and thoracic radiologists.

CONCLUSIONS

Important differences in interobserver agreement were found, with emergency physicians tending to overdiagnose PE.

Practice quality improvement during residency: where do we stand and where can we improve?

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Completing a systems-based practice project, equivalent to a practice quality improvement project (PQI), is a residency requirement by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education and an American Board of Radiology milestone. The aim of this study was to assess the residents' perspectives on quality improvement projects in radiology.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Survey data were collected from 154 trainee members of the Association of University Radiologists to evaluate the residents' views on PQI.

RESULTS

Most residents were aware of the requirement of completing a PQI project and had faculty mentors for their projects. Residents who thought it was difficult to find a mentor were more likely to start their project later in residency (P < .0001). Publication rates were low overall, and lack of time was considered the greatest obstacle. Having dedicated time for a PQI project was associated with increased likelihood of publishing or presenting the data (P = .0091). Residents who rated the five surveyed PQI steps (coming up with an idea, finding a mentor, designing a project, finding resources, and finding time) as difficult steps were more likely to not have initiated a PQI project (P < .0001 for the first four and P = .0046 for time).

CONCLUSION

We present five practical areas of improvement to make PQI a valuable learning experience: 1) Increasing awareness of PQI and providing ideas for projects, 2) encouraging faculty mentorship and publication, 3) educating residents about project design and implementation, 4) providing resources such as books and funds, and 5) allowing dedicated time.

Initial outcomes from federally mandated accreditation site surveys of advanced diagnostic imaging facilities performed by the ACR

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the findings of the first year of validation site surveys performed by the ACR pursuant to new federal accreditation requirements for nonhospital advanced diagnostic imaging (ADI) facilities.

METHODS

In the first year of validation site surveys (November 2012 to November 2013), the ACR surveyed 943 ADI facilities across 21 states. Data were extracted from these site survey reports and analyzed on the basis of the survey outcomes and the frequency and type of deficiencies and recommendations. Follow-up data were obtained from the ACR for facilities deemed noncompliant on the site survey to determine if these facilities adequately took the corrective actions necessary to maintain accreditation.

RESULTS

Of the 943 ADI facilities surveyed, 45% (n = 421) were deemed compliant with the ACR accreditation standards, and 55% (n = 522) had one or more deficiencies. Failure to produce the required personnel documentation and absence of mandatory written policies were the two most common causes of deficiencies. Facilities accredited in more modalities tended to fare better in the site surveys, with the number of accredited modalities at a facility negatively associated with the likelihood of a deficiency (P = .007). Of the facilities with deficiencies, 73% (n = 382) took the necessary corrective actions to maintain accreditation, 27% (n = 140) were in the process of taking corrective actions, and no facility has lost accreditation because of an inability to adequately address the deficiencies. Nonbinding recommendations were made to 37% (n = 346) of facilities, and facilities with deficiencies were statistically more likely to receive recommendations (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Initial site surveys of ADI facilities demonstrated a high proportion of deficient facilities, but no facility has lost accreditation because of an inability to correct these deficiencies. Knowledge of the most common sources of deficiencies and recommendations can assist ACR-accredited ADI facilities in better preparing for validation site surveys, reducing the likelihood of facility noncompliance.

Introducing radiology report checklists among residents: adherence rates when suggesting versus requiring their use and early experience in improving accuracy

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

To retrospectively compare resident adherence to checklist-style structured reporting for maxillofacial computed tomography (CT) from the emergency department (when required vs. suggested between two programs). To compare radiology resident reporting accuracy before and after introduction of the structured report and assess its ability to decrease the rate of undetected pathology.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We introduced a reporting checklist for maxillofacial CT into our dictation software without specific training, requiring it at one program and suggesting it at another. We quantified usage among residents and compared reporting accuracy, before and after counting and categorizing faculty addenda.

RESULTS

There was no significant change in resident accuracy in the first few months, with residents acting as their own controls (directly comparing performance with and without the checklist). Adherence to the checklist at program A (where it originated and was required) was 85% of reports compared to 9% of reports at program B (where it was suggested). When using program B as a secondary control, there was no significant difference in resident accuracy with or without using the checklist (comparing different residents using the checklist to those not using the checklist).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that there is no automatic value of checklists for improving radiology resident reporting accuracy. They also suggest the importance of focused training, checklist flexibility, and a period of adjustment to a new reporting style. Mandatory checklists were readily adopted by residents but not when simply suggested.

[One third of Danish doctors specializing in diagnostic radiology do not feel sufficiently equipped in terms of medical expertise]

An internet-based survey among Danish doctors specializing in diagnostic radiology revealed differences with respect to the length of internships at regional and university hospitals as well as the educational environment. The university hospitals were generally evaluated to have the best educational facilities except within practical skills. Therefore, it seems necessary to optimize the educational environment at regional hospitals, especially within medical expertise and scientific skills which are key elements regarding continuous development and quality assurance within radiology.

Understanding patient satisfaction ratings for radiology services

OBJECTIVE

Under the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Program of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, patient satisfaction accounts for 30% of the measures of and payments for quality of care. Understanding what drives patient satisfaction data and how the data are obtained, converted into scores, and formulated into rankings is increasingly critical for imaging departments. The objectives of this article are to describe the potential impact of patient satisfaction ratings on institutions and individuals, explain how patient satisfaction is rated and ranked, identify drivers that affect the ratings and rankings, and probe the resulting challenges unique to radiology departments.

CONCLUSION

Research results indicate that training providers to make simple modifications in their language and behavior during patient care can significantly impact patient satisfaction, which, in turn, can impact both quality-of-care ratings and the bottom line of hospitals. Training providers is a simple and cost-effective way to potentiate the clinical expression of compassion into improvement of patient satisfaction and financial reward, a national trend that no one in the game can afford to ignore.

Musculoskeletal ultrasound training and competency assessment program for rheumatology fellows

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to establish standards for musculoskeletal ultrasound competency through knowledge and skills testing using criterion-referenced methods.

METHODS

Two groups of rheumatology fellows trained in musculoskeletal ultrasound through a standardized curriculum, which required submission of ultrasound studies for review over 8 months. Both groups then completed written and practical examinations in musculoskeletal ultrasound. Instructors, advanced users, and intermediate users of musculoskeletal ultrasound served as comparison groups. A passing score (competency) was established for the written examination by the Angoff procedure and for the practical examination by the borderline method.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight fellows (19 in each group) took the final examination. Five fellows failed the written examination, and 1 failed the practical examination, whereas none of the advanced users failed. Written examination scores did not differ between the two fellow groups (74% versus 70%; P > .05), were reliable, and were able to discriminate between the intermediate and advanced groups. Practical and written examination results correlated in both groups (first group, r = 0.70; P = .0008; second group, r = 0.59; P = .009).

CONCLUSIONS

Criterion-referenced methods were used for the first time to determine fellow musculoskeletal ultrasound competency. The examination used to determine competency was reproducible, was reliable, and could differentiate musculoskeletal ultrasound users with different levels of experience. Most rheumatology fellows completing our program passed the written and practical examinations, suggesting achievement of basic musculoskeletal ultrasound competency.