Search

Rationale and Objectives: The use of imaging in medicine has increased considerably over the previous decades, contributing to significant inefficiency of use. Radiology education varies amongst institutions without standardized learning objectives. Consequently, many physicians and student doctors are unprepared to make appropriate choices regarding imaging. In response to COVID-19-engendered restrictions, we created a fully online, image-intensive radiology curriculum to introduce students to clinical radiology and appropriate imaging usage., Materials and Methods: A 2-week radiology elective curriculum was created that adopted accessible, free, online-based learning to foster student education and patient safety while upholding academic standards. Each unit included an emphasis on imaging appropriateness. Students assembled an elective portfolio including self-assessments and prepared a clinical radiology conference to present as a radiologist in training. Two final assessments were required. One consisted of clinical vignettes based on American College of Radiology (ACR) Appropriateness Criteria (AC). The second was an MRI safety quiz., Results: Third and fourth year students at five institutions (N = 97) completed the elective. Examination scores on an assessment adapted from the ACR AC were significantly improved compared to previously published scores of medical students who took ACR AC-based assessments without taking a radiology course. The course was published and shared with medical schools worldwide., Conclusion: The elective successfully educated students in radiology through a virtual platform and introduced them to the concept of appropriateness in medical imaging. These goals were accomplished using a free, online, easily accessible curriculum. Incorporation of additional topics within the discipline of radiology should be included in the curriculum in the future., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 The Association of University Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

In this white paper, the ACR Pediatric AI Workgroup of the Commission on Informatics educates the radiology community about the health equity issue of the lack of pediatric artificial intelligence (AI), improves the understanding of relevant pediatric AI issues, and offers solutions to address the inadequacies in pediatric AI development. In short, the design, training, validation, and safe implementation of AI in children require careful and specific approaches that can be distinct from those used for adults. On the eve of widespread use of AI in imaging practice, the group invites the radiology community to align and join Image IntelliGently (www.imageintelligently.org) to ensure that the use of AI is safe, reliable, and effective for children., (Copyright © 2023 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The purpose of this study is to determine the proficiency of emergency medicine residents in selecting appropriate radiologic examinations for specific clinical scenarios and to ascertain whether their training improves competency in this area over the course of their residency., Materials and Methods: An online multiple-choice questionnaire was created. It included 10 clinical scenarios excerpted from the American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria guidelines and instructed residents to select the most appropriate initial imaging study. A link and invitation to the survey were e-mailed to the residency program directors and coordinators of all American Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited emergency medicine residency training programs with the request that they be forwarded to their current residents. Responses were graded, with correct answers derived from the American College of Radiology guidelines. Results were stratified by year of emergency medicine training, and an analysis of variance was performed., Results: A total of 583 residents from at least 77 different emergency medicine residency training programs completed the survey. Overall, the average number of questions answered correctly was 7.1 of 10 (SD, 1.2). First-through fourth-year residents averaged 6.9 (SD, 1.3), 7.1 (SD, 1.2), 7.1 (SD, 1.1), and 7.5 (SD, 1.1) correct answers, respectively. Analysis of variance found no significant difference between the scores of the four classes (p = 0.09)., Conclusion: Emergency medicine residents do not show significant improvement over the course of their residency in their ability to choose appropriate imaging studies. This finding suggests that there is a role for more-rigorous focused instruction to better familiarize residents with appropriateness guidelines for diagnostic imaging selection.

Objective: The ACR has developed appropriateness criteria to ensure that patients are receiving appropriate imaging studies. The purpose of this study was to compare the imaging ordering practices of pediatric residents in specific clinical scenarios with the ACR Appropriateness Criteria., Materials and Methods: A multiple-choice questionnaire was created using 10 clinical scenarios excerpted from the ACR Appropriateness Criteria. The questionnaire was sent to 69 pediatric residents (postgraduate years 1-3) at Children's Hospital of New York at Columbia University Medical Center (CHONY) and then to 75 pediatric residents at The Children's Hospital at Montefiore Medical Center (CHAM). The responses were compared with the ACR Appropriateness Criteria., Results: Seventy-five and 69 pediatric residents from the CHAM and CHONY, respectively, were invited to participate in the survey. Thirty-nine individual responses (52%) were received from CHAM, and 41 (59%) were received from CHONY. A total of 27 responses were received from first-year residents, 28 from second-year residents, and 25 from third-year residents. The average number of questions answered incorrectly by first-year residents was 4.1, by second-year residents was 4.4, and by third-year residents was 4.5., Conclusions: This study demonstrates that residents appreciate the value of an imaging workup, but these examinations are often ordered without the consultation of a radiologist. The decision each resident makes reflects individual training. To improve residents' ability to make decisions regarding imaging examinations, radiologists must educate pediatric residents with uniform case-based and didactic sessions., (Copyright (c) 2010 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Lead containing dust may be present on the exterior surfaces of shields used to prevent radiation exposure. We determined whether use of lead shields poses an exposure risk for radiology personnel. Methods: We collected hand dustwipe and blood samples from 58 Radiology Department employees of an academic hospital. Samples were analyzed for lead content by atomic absorption spectroscopy. Results were compared between lead apron users (46) and nonusers (12). Results: Hand dustwipe lead was undetectable (<3 µg/sample) in all cases. Blood lead levels ranged from 0–3 µg/dL. Conclusions: In this study of Radiology Department workers, we did not find an increased risk of lead contamination on their hands or in their blood. Although our sample size is small, we conclude that lead poisoning is unlikely to occur with high frequency in lead shield users. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

: Rationale and ObjectivesThis study was performed to evaluate the ability of medical trainees to choose appropriate diagnostic imaging studies for patients with various clinical indications.: Materials and MethodsTwelve clinical scenarios were excerpted from the 2000 edition of the American College of Radiology appropriateness criteria and arranged in multiple-choice question format. Summary answers based on the criteria were written. The questionnaire and answer key were placed online and linked; the answer key was viewable only after all 12 answers were submitted by the trainee. An invitation to participate in the online survey was forwarded to medical house staff.: ResultsSixty-five (43.3%) of 150 potential respondents completed the survey. The results were tabulated for all respondents and separately for each postgraduate-year class. Fewer than 50% of the respondents correctly answered more than half of the 12 questions. The average number of questions answered correctly by 1st-year residents was 7.02; by 2nd-year residents, 7.5; and by 3rd-year residents, 7.9.: ConclusionMedical house staff are not adequately prepared to choose appropriate imaging examinations for specific indications. Improvements in education could prevent inappropriate use of radiology resources. Imaging centers might want to consider developing online catalogs to assist clinicians in choosing appropriate imaging tests. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]