Choosing Wisely and Imaging 3.0 Professional Development: Radiology Resident Consultant Service

Radiological outpatient' visits to avoid inappropriate cardiac CT examinations: an 8-year experience report

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the appropriateness of the cardiac computed tomography angiography (CCTA) prescriptions according to the "2010-Appropriate-Use-Criteria-for-Cardiac-Computed-Tomography-Angiography" (AUCCTA) and "Clinical-indication-for-CCTA" (CICCTA) among different specialities (Cardiologist [CA], General Practitioner [GP], Other Specialists [OS]) and prescribers' age.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a single-centre, single-arm, cohort study. We prospectively enrolled 815 patients (October 2012-May 2019) who underwent a radiological outpatient visit, before CCTA examination. Prescriptions to the examination were categorized as follows: Appropriate (A), Uncertain (U) and Inappropriate (Ina), according to AUCCTA and I, II, III and Inv for CICCTA. This categorization was stratified according to CA, GP and OS and prescribers' age. CCTA was performed in patients whom indications belong to A/U categories.

RESULTS

Eight hundred and fifteen CCTA prescriptions were analysed. An yearly increase in prescriptions was found in the eight-year observational period (2012/2019 projection: 72 vs 223). Considering AUCCTA, indication A was 540/815 (66.3%), indication U was 113/815 (13.9%) and Ina accounted for 162/815 (19.9%; 128/162 [79.0%] indications with stress test listed as criterium of inappropriateness). Only U indications decreased over years (p = 0.003). Regarding CICCTA, 501/815 (61.5%) patients were categorized as I, 144/815 (17.7%) as II, 102/815 (12.5%) as III, 67/815 (8.2%) were INV and 1/815 (0.1%) were non-classified. Clinical referrals were CA in 495/786 (63.0%), GPs in 57/786 (7.3%) GP and OS in 234/786 (29.8%) [p < 0.01]. No statistically significant differences were observed in the appropriateness among different specialty physicians. Younger doctors have a lower chance to not meet A indication (OR 0.98 [CI 95% 0.96-0.99]; p = 0.003).

CONCLUSION

Our study highlights the importance of a pre-radiological visit prior to CCTA, which prevented execution of 19.9% of inappropriate examinations. Age of prescribers had an impact on appropriateness, with younger doctors having a lower chance to not meet A indication.

Maximizing Value While Volumes are Increasing

Radiologists are facing ever increasing volumes while trying to provide value-based care. There are several drivers of increasing volumes: increasing population size, aging population, increased utilization, gaps in evidence-based care, changes in the provider workforce, defensive medicine, and increasing case complexity. Higher volumes result in increased cognitive and systemic errors and contribute to radiologist fatigue and burnout. We discuss several strategies for mitigating high volumes including abbreviated MRI protocols, 24/7 radiologist coverage, reading room assistants, and other strategies to tackle radiologist burnout.

Precision Radiology Residency Training: Special Distinction Tracks for Noninterpretative Professional Development

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

The role of a radiologist has expanded beyond the tripartite mission of patient care, education, and research to include cross-specialty consultation for patient management, innovative solutions to improve health-care quality and safety, device design, and policy advocacy. As such, radiology residency programs should incorporate formalized training to prepare residents for these various professional roles.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Since the 2015-2016 academic year, five training tracks focused on noninterpretative skills have been integrated into our residency training program: Clinician Educator, Quality Improvement, Entrepreneurship/Innovation, Health Policy Advocacy, and High-Value Care. Each track is longitudinal, with a set of requirements throughout the residents' training necessary to achieve certification at graduation.

RESULTS

To date nine residents have participated in the programs, including two who received distinction in two separate tracks. Residents in each of the tracks have implemented successful initiatives related to the focus area. As such, these tracks enrich training by ensuring that residents make meaningful contributions to the department and institution during their training and disseminate successful initiatives through presentation at national meetings and publications.

CONCLUSION

The duration of a radiology residency and resources available in an academic center provide opportunities for residency program directors to advance residents' skills in important noninterpretative components of radiology practice. Regardless of whether residents pursue academic medicine or private practice, these skills are necessary for graduates to become valuable members of a radiology practice and serve as national leaders in the field of radiology.

Pediatric providers and radiology examinations: knowledge and comfort levels regarding ionizing radiation and potential complications of imaging

BACKGROUND

Pediatric providers should understand the basic risks of the diagnostic imaging tests they order and comfortably discuss those risks with parents. Appreciating providers' level of understanding is important to guide discussions and enhance relationships between radiologists and pediatric referrers.

OBJECTIVE

To assess pediatric provider knowledge of diagnostic imaging modalities that use ionizing radiation and to understand provider concerns about risks of imaging.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A 6-question survey was sent via email to 390 pediatric providers (faculty, trainees and midlevel providers) from a single academic institution. A knowledge-based question asked providers to identify which radiology modalities use ionizing radiation. Subjective questions asked providers about discussions with parents, consultations with radiologists, and complications of imaging studies.

RESULTS

One hundred sixty-nine pediatric providers (43.3% response rate) completed the survey. Greater than 90% of responding providers correctly identified computed tomography (CT), fluoroscopy and radiography as modalities that use ionizing radiation, and ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as modalities that do not. Fewer (66.9% correct, P<0.001) knew that nuclear medicine utilizes ionizing radiation. A majority of providers (82.2%) believed that discussions with radiologists regarding ionizing radiation were helpful, but 39.6% said they rarely had time to do so. Providers were more concerned with complications of sedation and cost than they were with radiation-induced cancer, renal failure or anaphylaxis.

CONCLUSION

Providers at our academic referral center have a high level of basic knowledge regarding modalities that use ionizing radiation, but they are less aware of ionizing radiation use in nuclear medicine studies. They find discussions with radiologists helpful and are concerned about complications of sedation and cost.

Training Radiology Residents to be Stewards in Healthcare Value

Medical imaging procedures have become a national target in the campaign to reduce wasteful practices. At a minimum, radiology residency programs must integrate high-value curricula and train residents to practice in accordance with value-based principles and new healthcare policy. A greater portion of radiology resident education needs to be devoted to appropriateness education and consultancy training. Ideally, radiology training programs will instill in residents the importance of embracing the movement and leading the change.