Working from home during the COVID-19 pandemic: surveys of the Society for Pediatric Radiology and the Society of Chiefs of Radiology at Children's Hospitals

Evidence for an adverse impact of remote readouts on radiology resident productivity: Implications for training and clinical practice

After their rapid adoption at the onset of the coronavirus pandemic, remote case reviews (remote readouts) between diagnostic radiology residents and their attendings have persisted in an increasingly remote workforce, despite relaxing social distancing guidelines. Our objective was to evaluate the impact of the transition to remote readouts on resident case volumes after the recovery of institutional volumes. We tabulated radiology reports co-authored by first-to-third-year radiology residents (R1-R3) between July 1 and December 31 of the first pandemic year, 2020, and compared to the prior two pre-pandemic years. Half-years were analyzed because institutional volumes recovered by July 2020. Resident volumes were normalized to rotations, which were in divisions categorized by the location of the supervising faculty during the pandemic period; in 'remote' divisions, all faculty worked off-site, whereas 'hybrid' divisions had a mix of attendings working on-site and remotely. All residents worked on-site. Data analysis was performed with Student's t test and multivariate linear regression. The largest drops in total case volume occurred in the two remote divisions (38% [6,086 to 3,788], and 26% [11,046 to 8,149]). None of the hybrid divisions with both in-person and remote supervision decreased by more than 5%. With multivariate regression, a resident assigned to a standardized remote rotation in 2020 would complete 32% (253 to 172) fewer studies than in identical pre-pandemic rotations (coefficent of -81.6, p = .005) but would be similar for hybrid rotations. R1 residents would be expected to interpret 40% fewer (180 to 108) cases on remote rotations during the pandemic (coefficient of -72.3, p = .007). No significant effect was seen for R2 or R3 residents (p = .099 and p = .29, respectively). Radiology residents interpreted fewer studies during remote rotations than on hybrid rotations that included in-person readouts. As resident case volume is correlated with clinical performance and board pass rate, monitoring the readout model for downstream educational effects is essential. Until evidence shows that educational outcomes remain unchanged, radiology residencies may wish to preserve in-person resident readouts, particularly for junior residents.

Working from home: Changes in radiologist reporting behavior in response to the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

Remote reporting is an important preventive measure against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) for radiology departments; it reduces the chance of cross-infections between coworkers. The purpose of this study was to evaluate how the preferred locations that radiologists filed reports from changed in response to COVID-19 by measuring the use of internal teleradiology workstations.

METHODS

Data were obtained from the radiological information system (RIS) database at our institution, which recorded the reporting workstation for each radiological examination. The reporting activities in 2021 were divided into computed radiography (CR) and computed tomography (CT)/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) groups. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to measure differences in the use of off-site workstations in prepandemic, midpandemic, and postpandemic periods.

RESULTS

There were statistically significant increases in the number of reports filed from off-site workstations for each attending physician from the prepandemic period to the midpandemic period in both the CR (15.1%-25.4%, p = 0.041) and CT/MRI (18.9%-28.7%, p = 0.006) groups. There was no significant difference noted between the prepandemic and postpandemic periods for either the CR (15.1% vs 18.4%, p = 0.727) or CT/MRI group (18.9% vs 23.3%, p = 0.236).

CONCLUSION

In response to the COVID-19 outbreak, radiologists used internal teleradiology to report CR and CT/MRI examinations significantly more frequently. In contrast to the predictions of previous studies, the use of internal teleradiology returned to baseline levels after the pandemic was under control.

Imaging volumes during COVID-19: A Victorian health service experience

BACKGROUND

The World Health Organisation declared the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) a pandemic on March 11, 2020. While globally, the relative caseload has been high, Australia’s has been relatively low. During the pandemic, radiology services have seen significant changes in workflow across modalities and a reduction in imaging volumes.

AIM

To investigate differences in modality imaging volumes during the COVID-19 pandemic across a large Victorian public health network.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis from January 2019 to December 2020 compared imaging volumes across two periods corresponding to the pandemic’s first and second waves. Weekly volumes across patient class, modality and mobile imaging were summed for periods: wave 1 (weeks 11 to 16 for 2019; weeks 63 to 68 for 2020) and wave 2 (weeks 28 to 43 for 2019; weeks 80 to 95 for 2020). Microsoft Power Business Intelligence linked to the radiology information system was used to mine all completed examinations.

RESULTS

Summed weekly data during the pandemic’s first wave showed the greatest decrease of 29.8% in adult outpatient imaging volumes and 46.3% in paediatric emergency department imaging volumes. Adult nuclear medicine demonstrated the greatest decrease of 37.1% for the same period. Paediatric nuclear medicine showed the greatest decrease of 47.8%, with angiography increasing by 50%. The pandemic’s second wave demonstrated the greatest decrease of 23.5% in adult outpatient imaging volumes, with an increase of 18.2% in inpatient imaging volumes. The greatest decrease was 28.5% in paediatric emergency department imaging volumes. Nuclear medicine showed the greatest decrease of 37.1% for the same period. Paediatric nuclear medicine showed the greatest decrease of 36.7%. Mobile imaging utilisation increased between 57.8% and 135.1% during the first and second waves. A strong correlation was observed between mobile and non-mobile imaging in the emergency setting (Spearman’s correlation coefficient = -0.743, P = 0.000). No correlation was observed in the inpatient setting (Spearman’s correlation coefficient = -0.059, P = 0.554).

CONCLUSION

Nuclear medicine was most impacted, while computed tomography and angiography were the least affected by the pandemic. The impact was less during the pandemic’s second wave. Mobile imaging shows continuous growth during both waves.