Search

The Association of Program Directors in Radiology (APDR) regularly surveys its members to gather information regarding a broad range of topics related to radiology residency. The survey results provide insight into the opinions of residency program leadership across the country.This is an observational cross-sectional study using a web-based survey posed to the APDR membership in the fall of 2017. The final survey consisted of 53 items, 48 multiple choice questions and five write-in comments. An invitation to complete the survey was sent to all 319 active APDR members.Deidentified responses were collected electronically, tallied utilizing Qualtrics software, and aggregated for the purposes of analysis and reporting at the 66th annual meeting of the Association of University Radiologists. The response rate was 36%.Over the past 16 years, more PDs have assistant and APDs to administer growing residency programs, but the time allocation for these APDs has come from the PD's protected time. An overwhelming majority of PDs consider independent call beneficial to residents and most think a call assistant is desirable. The vast majority of PDs support a unified fellowship match and allow resident moonlighting. Most fourth year residents are actively or moderately involved in clinical work and teaching. The majority of PDs have lost or expect to lose DR training positions to the new IR/DR programs. In a competitive match, PDs do not rely on residency interviews in their selection process.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, it is very likely that many radiology residency and fellowship programs will adopt interactive videoconference interviewing for the 2020-2021 residency match cycle. Although video interviewing has become a common part of the hiring process for business, experience with video interviewing for resident and fellow selection has been limited. Advantages of video interviews over traditional on-site interviews include cost-savings to both applicants and residency programs, less disruption to an applicant's educational activities, and potential for training programs to access a wider pool of candidates. The loss of the casual interactions that occur during an on-site interview and the inability of candidates to evaluate training facilities and their surrounding environments in-person are among the obstacles posed by video interviews, but training programs can mitigate these challenges with enhanced website content and creative media solutions. Through a review of the existing literature and internet resources, this article recommends specific measures medical schools, applicants, and radiology residency and fellowship programs can take to optimize the virtual interview experience for all involved parties.

Rationale and Objectives Implementation of low dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening programs has followed the demonstration of reduced lung cancer mortality in the National Lung Screening Trial and subsequent consensus screening recommendations. Here we aim to assess the initial results of a screening program at an academic medical center, to discuss the challenges of implementing such a program, and suggest strategies for reducing patient dose. Materials and Methods Retrospective review of all patients who underwent LDCT lung cancer screening at our institution between March 2015 and July 2016 was performed to assess the lung cancer detection rate, the spectrum of imaging findings (nodule or mass characteristics, degree of emphysema, etc.), and patient radiation dose indices. Results A total of 272 patients were screened during the study period. Approximately 50% (n = 135) were women. The lung cancer detection rate was 2.2% (n = 6). One patient underwent chemoradiation therapy, whereas the remainder underwent uneventful thoracoscopic resection. Approximately, 80% of screened patients met United States Preventative Services Task Force criteria for LDCT screening. The median pack-years of smoking was 42 pack-years. The mean volume CT dose index for the screening CTs was 3.12 mGy. Utilizing tube current modulation and iterative reconstruction, where available, resulted in lower patient doses. Conclusion Initial LDCT lung cancer screening at our institution yielded results similar to those of the National Lung Screening Trial. Thorough prescreening evaluation, joint decision-making, centralized coordination of screening-related care, and patient size conscious scanning protocols are critical elements of a safe and successful lung cancer screening program.

Rationale and Objectives The Association of Program Directors in Radiology (APDR) surveys residents' educational experiences, work responsibilities, and benefits to support radiology residency programs and their directors. Materials and Methods This is an observational cross-sectional study using three Web-based surveys posed to the APDR membership in the spring of 2013 (March 7–29, 2013; 44 items), the fall of 2013 (October 24 to November 15, 2013; 36 items), and the spring of 2014 (March 3–21, 2014; 49 items) on the American Board of Radiology (ABR) Core examination, organization of Clinical Competency Committees (CCCs), fellowship match, and interventional radiology (IR)–diagnostic radiology (DR) training programs. Results Responses were collected electronically, results were tallied using SurveyMonkey software, and qualitative responses were tabulated or summarized as comments. Findings were reported during the 60th and 61st annual meetings of the Association of University Radiologists, respectively. The maximal response rate was 35% in the spring 2013, 39% in the fall 2013, and 39% in the spring 2014. Conclusions With the ABR Core examination, radiology educators increasingly included multiple choice questions in teaching conferences. "Boards frenzy" was alive and well. The number of programs with a CCC was growing, chaired primarily by the Program Director (PD), with the most commonly used tool being the rotation evaluation. In view of "fellowship frenzy" in the third year of residency, only a minority of PDs were against a fellowship match in the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP). The majority of respondents replied that the new IR/DR pathway would negatively affect the DR residency.

Rationale and Objectives Providing evidence-based appropriate imaging potentially increases diagnostic yield and prevents unnecessary imaging. The American College of Radiology's (ACR) evidence-based Appropriateness Criteria ® (ACR-AC) were developed to provide imaging guidelines given various clinical scenarios. The goal of this study was to evaluate the knowledge level of the appropriate thoracic imaging study to be performed, given a clinical scenario. Methods An online survey comprising 20 multiple-choice questions was developed on the basis of excerpts from the ACR-AC for thoracic imaging. The survey was piloted and invitations were sent out to resident trainees in radiology ( n = 32), medicine ( n = 119), and surgery ( n = 40) and to pulmonary and critical medicine fellows ( n = 16). Results Sixty-nine trainees (33%) completed the survey. The trainees among those who completed the survey included 14 (20%) in radiology, 32 (46%) in medicine, eight (12%) in surgery, and 15 (22%) in pulmonary and critical medicine. Of the 69 trainees, most were male ( n = 47 [68%]), aged 25 to 35 years ( n = 65 [94%]), and in postgraduate years 1 to 3 ( n = 44 [64%]). The overall median and percentage number of correct responses were 13 (interquartile range [IQR], 11–15) and 65% ( n = 44), respectively. As would be expected, radiology residents performed better, with a median number of correct responses of 15 (IQR, 11–16) compared to 10 (IQR, 9–12) for medicine trainees, nine (IQR, 9–12) for surgery trainees, and 13 (IQR, 12–15) for pulmonary and critical medicine trainees. There was an increase in the median number of correct responses with years of training, ranging from 10 for postgraduate year 1 to 12 for postgraduate year 6. Conclusions This study shows an opportunity to increase the awareness of the ACR-AC. Increasing the awareness of the ACR-AC among trainees will likely increase their use in practice and ultimately improve patient care.

The Association of Program Directors in Radiology (APDR) surveys residents' educational experiences, work responsibilities, and benefits to support radiology residency programs and their directors.This is an observational cross-sectional study using three Web-based surveys posed to the APDR membership in the spring of 2013 (March 7-29, 2013; 44 items), the fall of 2013 (October 24 to November 15, 2013; 36 items), and the spring of 2014 (March 3-21, 2014; 49 items) on the American Board of Radiology (ABR) Core examination, organization of Clinical Competency Committees (CCCs), fellowship match, and interventional radiology (IR)-diagnostic radiology (DR) training programs.Responses were collected electronically, results were tallied using SurveyMonkey software, and qualitative responses were tabulated or summarized as comments. Findings were reported during the 60th and 61st annual meetings of the Association of University Radiologists, respectively. The maximal response rate was 35% in the spring 2013, 39% in the fall 2013, and 39% in the spring 2014.With the ABR Core examination, radiology educators increasingly included multiple choice questions in teaching conferences. "Boards frenzy" was alive and well. The number of programs with a CCC was growing, chaired primarily by the Program Director (PD), with the most commonly used tool being the rotation evaluation. In view of "fellowship frenzy" in the third year of residency, only a minority of PDs were against a fellowship match in the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP). The majority of respondents replied that the new IR/DR pathway would negatively affect the DR residency.

Providing evidence-based appropriate imaging potentially increases diagnostic yield and prevents unnecessary imaging. The American College of Radiology's (ACR) evidence-based Appropriateness Criteria(®) (ACR-AC) were developed to provide imaging guidelines given various clinical scenarios. The goal of this study was to evaluate the knowledge level of the appropriate thoracic imaging study to be performed, given a clinical scenario.An online survey comprising 20 multiple-choice questions was developed on the basis of excerpts from the ACR-AC for thoracic imaging. The survey was piloted and invitations were sent out to resident trainees in radiology (n = 32), medicine (n = 119), and surgery (n = 40) and to pulmonary and critical medicine fellows (n = 16).Sixty-nine trainees (33%) completed the survey. The trainees among those who completed the survey included 14 (20%) in radiology, 32 (46%) in medicine, eight (12%) in surgery, and 15 (22%) in pulmonary and critical medicine. Of the 69 trainees, most were male (n = 47 [68%]), aged 25 to 35 years (n = 65 [94%]), and in postgraduate years 1 to 3 (n = 44 [64%]). The overall median and percentage number of correct responses were 13 (interquartile range [IQR], 11-15) and 65% (n = 44), respectively. As would be expected, radiology residents performed better, with a median number of correct responses of 15 (IQR, 11-16) compared to 10 (IQR, 9-12) for medicine trainees, nine (IQR, 9-12) for surgery trainees, and 13 (IQR, 12-15) for pulmonary and critical medicine trainees. There was an increase in the median number of correct responses with years of training, ranging from 10 for postgraduate year 1 to 12 for postgraduate year 6.This study shows an opportunity to increase the awareness of the ACR-AC. Increasing the awareness of the ACR-AC among trainees will likely increase their use in practice and ultimately improve patient care.