Diagnostic Imaging Services in Magnet and Non-Magnet Hospitals: Trends in Utilization and Costs

Radiology Research Funding: Current State and Future Opportunities

Funding for research has become increasingly difficult to obtain in an environment of decreasing clinical revenue, increasing research costs, and growing competition for federal and nonfederal funding sources. This paper identifies critical requirements to build and sustain a successful radiology research program (eg, key personnel and leadership, research training and mentorship, infrastructure, institutional and departmental funding or support), reviews the current state of available funding for radiology (including federal, nonfederal, philanthropy, crowdfunding, and industry), and describes promising opportunities for future funding (eg, health services, comparative effectiveness, and patient-centered outcomes research). The funding climate, especially at the federal level, changes periodically, so it is important to have radiology-specific organizations such as the American College of Radiology and the Academy of Radiology Research serving as our key advocates. Key to obtaining any funding, no matter what the source, is a well-formulated grant proposal, so a review of opportunities specifically available to radiologists to develop and hone their grant-writing skills is provided. Effective and sustained funding for radiology research has the potential to cultivate young researchers, bolster quality research, and enhance health care. Those interested in pursuing research need to be aware of the ever-changing funding landscape, research priority areas, and the resources available to them to succeed. To succeed, radiology researchers need to think about diversification and flexibility in their interests, developing multidisciplinary and multi-institutional projects, and engaging a broader base of stakeholders that includes patients.

Is Magnet® recognition associated with improved outcomes among critically ill children treated at freestanding children's hospitals?

PURPOSE

With increasing emphasis on high-quality care, we designed this study to evaluate the relationship between Magnet® recognition and patient outcomes in pediatric critical care.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Post hoc analysis of data from an existing administrative national database. We used inverse probability of treatment weighting and multivariate models to compare outcomes between two study groups after adjusting for confounding variables.

RESULTS

A total of 823,634 pediatric patients from 41 centers were included. Of these, 454,616 patients (55.2%) were treated in 23 Magnet hospitals. The majority of baseline characteristics did not vary significantly among the two study groups. In adjusted models, there was no difference in mortality between the two groups (Magnet vs. non-Magnet; odds ratio: 0.92, 95% confidence interval: 0.77-1.11). When stratified by various subgroups, such as cardiac, non-cardiac, ECMO, cardiac arrest, respiratory failure, use of nitric oxide, genetic abnormality etc., Magnet status of the hospital did not confer a survival advantage. In a sensitivity analysis on patients from crossover hospitals only, attainment of magnet status was associated with increased hospital charges.

CONCLUSIONS

This large observational study calls into question the utility of the Magnet Recognition Program among children with critical illness, at least among the freestanding children's hospitals.