Retirement patterns and plans of radiologists

The Second Mountain: Climbing the Challenges of Midcareer Radiology

A radiologist's career can be divided into the early, middle, and late phases. The midcareer phase is a particularly difficult period and has the highest rate of burnout among radiologists. Often throughout the early phase of a radiologist's career, during residency, fellowship, and while a junior faculty member, there is an abundance of support to help in personal and professional growth, but this support often wanes as radiologists gain seniority. Unfortunately, this often leaves midcareer radiologists feeling forgotten, or "invisible." This lack of support can lead to burnout, decreased job satisfaction, and premature departure from the workforce. The purpose of this review is to bring to light the challenges, such as higher rates of burnout and career stagnation, in addition to the lack of emphasis placed on midcareer mentorship, sponsorship, and career development programs, facing radiologists while climbing the "second mountain" of their career, as well as to provide potential individual and institutional interventions to combat these challenges. In addition, emphasis will be placed on the difficulties experienced by midcareer female radiologists, whose challenges are particularly problematic and to our knowledge have received little attention in the imaging literature to date.

A systematic review of physician retirement planning

BACKGROUND

Physician retirement planning and timing have important implications for patients, hospitals, and healthcare systems. Unplanned early or late physician retirement can have dire consequences in terms of both patient safety and human resource allocations. This systematic review examined existing evidence on the timing and process of retirement of physicians. Four questions were addressed: (1) When do physicians retire? (2) Why do some physicians retire early? (3) Why do some physicians delay their retirement? (4) What strategies facilitate physician retention and/or retirement planning?

METHODS

English-language studies were searched in electronic databases MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL, AgeLine, Embase, HealthSTAR, ASSA, and PsycINFO, from inception up to and including March 2016. Included studies were peer-reviewed primary journal articles with quantitative and/or qualitative analyses of physicians' plans for, and opinions about, retirement. Three reviewers independently assessed each study for methodological quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for quantitative studies and Critical Appraisal Tool for qualitative studies, and a fourth reviewer resolved inconsistencies.

RESULTS

In all, 65 studies were included and analyzed, of which the majority were cross-sectional in design. Qualitative studies were found to be methodologically strong, with credible results deemed relevant to practice. The majority of quantitative studies had adequate sample representativeness, had justified and satisfactory sample size, used appropriate statistical tests, and collected primary data by self-reported survey methods. Physicians commonly reported retiring between 60 and 69 years of age. Excessive workload and burnout were frequently cited reasons for early retirement. Ongoing financial obligations delayed retirement, while strategies to mitigate career dissatisfaction, workplace frustration, and workload pressure supported continuing practice.

CONCLUSIONS

Knowledge of when physicians plan to retire and how they can transition out of practice has been shown to aid succession planning. Healthcare organizations might consider promoting retirement mentorship programs, resource toolkits, education sessions, and guidance around financial planning for physicians throughout their careers, as well as creating post-retirement opportunities that maintain institutional ties through teaching, mentoring, and peer support.

Work and retirement preferences of practicing radiologists as a predictor of workforce needs

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

The radiology job market has been described as highly variable, and recent practice hiring surveys predict that the number of available jobs will remain flat. Radiologists may be working more hours and retiring later than desired, activities that influence overall job availability. A national survey was performed to determine the desired work rate and retirement preferences of practicing radiologists, and the responses are used to estimate current and potential future work output and future workforce needs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Practicing radiologists were surveyed regarding current and preferred work level and desired and expected retirement age. A model incorporating these preferences and stratified by age was developed using survey responses and American Medical Association full-time equivalent (FTE) estimates. Available FTE radiologists are estimated under four scenarios from 2016 to 2031 in 5-year intervals.

RESULTS

The model predicts a total of 26,362 FTE radiologists available in 2011, which corresponds to previous estimates. Participants reported working more hours and expecting to retire later than desired, with younger radiologists and women reporting the greatest desired decrease in FTE hours worked. Under each scenario, there is an initial FTE availability in 2016 ranging from 21,156 to 24,537, which increases to between 27,753 and 31,435 FTE by 2031 depending on work rate and retirement patterns.

CONCLUSIONS

Practicing radiologists report that they currently work more hours than desired and expect to retire later than they would prefer. If radiologists changed current personal work rate and expected retirement age to meet these preferences, there would be an immediate shortage of FTE radiologists continuing until at least 2020 assuming no other workforce needs changes.

Radiologists' clinical practice of neuroimaging

PURPOSE

Because of the importance of neuroimaging as a radiology subspecialty, the aim of this study was to provide a detailed portrait of the demographics, clinical activities, and practices of radiologists heavily involved in neuroimaging.

METHODS

The authors analyzed data from the ACR's 2003 Survey of Radiologists, a large, stratified random-sample survey in which respondents were guaranteed confidentiality. The survey achieved a 63% response rate, and responses were weighted to make them representative of all radiologists in the United States.

RESULTS

Three-fourths of US radiologists reported doing neuroradiology; 9% reported that neuroradiology was their main subspecialty, and 9% reported spending more than 50% of their clinical work time doing neuroradiology. Of these latter two categories, more than about 75% had certificates of added qualification (CAQs) in neuroradiology, and more than 80% had done neuroradiology fellowships. However, of those spending more than 50% of their clinical work time doing neuroradiology, 7% neither had CAQs nor had done fellowships in the field. One-fourth of radiologists with CAQs or who had done neuroradiology fellowships spent less than 30% of their clinical work time doing neuroradiology. One-third to one-half of neuroimaging was performed by radiologists not heavily involved in the field. Only 6% to 8% of radiologists heavily involved in the field were women, compared with 22% in other subspecialties.

CONCLUSIONS

Neuroimaging has the great strength of being a relatively well-integrated subspecialty in that a very large majority of those heavily involved in its practice have CAQs and did fellowships in the field. Among possible concerns are the relatively few women in the field and the apparent waste of expertise resulting from one-fourth of those with neuroradiology subspecialty training or certification being relatively little immersed in its practice.

How Could the Radiologist Shortage Have Eased?

OBJECTIVE

In 2000, a severe shortage of diagnostic radiologists existed in the United States. We seek to explain how the shortage eased greatly by 2003, despite the fact that the total imaging workload usually grows much faster than the number of radiologists in practice, which would be expected to intensify the shortage.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We measured the contribution of eight possible explanations, predominantly using simple quantitative analyses. We analyzed published data, data on the volume of imaging from Medicare and from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, data on residents and fellows from the American College of Radiology's (ACR) membership department, data on residents from the American Board of Radiology, data from the ACR's 1995 and 2003 Surveys of Radiologists, and data from interviews about nighthawk services.

RESULTS

From these data sources, we determined the following. Total imaging and imaging by radiologists continued to grow rapidly--by > 20% from 2000 to 2003 (measured in relative value units), which was somewhat faster than in the years preceding 2000 when the shortage was building. Foreign imagers took on a negligible portion of the workload. No reductions in retirement occurred among radiologists during 2000-2003, a 10-20% decrease in the annual number of residency graduates occurred, and no increase in residents going directly into the workforce rather than taking a fellowship was noted. Radiologists' average annual work hours were relatively constant, increasing by perhaps 2%. Work done per hour--that is, productivity--increased sharply (by approximately 15%) during this period.

CONCLUSION

Increased productivity is the predominant explanation of how the radiologist shortage eased. The contribution of other factors was, in comparison, small or even in the opposite direction.