'What Program Directors Think' II

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.