Proposed program guidelines for pregnant radiology residents: a project supported by the American Association for Women Radiologists and the Association of Program Directors in Radiology

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Written institutional policies governing radiation exposure and work responsibilities for pregnant radiology residents are not uniform and often are nonexistent. Standardized program guidelines would allow residents and program directors alike to prepare for a resident pregnancy with objectivity and consistency. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The American Association for Women Radiologists (AAWR) launched a task force to revisit guidelines for the protection of pregnant residents from radiation exposure during training. We conducted two surveys of the Association of Program Directors in Radiology (APDR) membership. Survey 1 was designed to learn about existing program and institutional policies and to assess the need for and interest in standardized guidelines that would address radiation exposure and work responsibilities for pregnant radiology residents. Based on those responses, we drafted a set of program guidelines incorporating policies contributed by responding program directors. Our follow-up APDR survey, survey 2, was conducted to determine opinions and acceptance of the drafted program guidelines. Each survey was analyzed by using a proportion of means test. RESULTS: Fifty-five of 156 program director APDR members (35%) responded to survey 1. Only half the respondents had formal written policies at their respective institutions. Review of submitted policies showed widely divergent opinions about appropriate policies for pregnant radiology residents. Most (34/52; 75%) supported the development of standardized guidelines. In survey 2, 38/73 responding APDR members (53%) offered their opinions and comments on our drafted guidelines. Approximately 90% agreement was catalogued on 13 of 18 items (72%); a majority (>60%) agreed on all points, even the most controversial points concerning fluoroscopy. CONCLUSION: A minority of radiology residency programs have written policies addressing pregnancy during training. With expressed support from a majority of responding program directors, we have developed and present here proposed program guidelines for pregnant radiology residents to serve as a framework for radiology residents and program directors alike.     

Call obligations in radiology residency: a survey

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The authors evaluated the initial assignment of call responsibilities during residency, the effect on call obligations of the number of residents, and the differences between private and university programs and level 1 and non-level 1 trauma centers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A survey was sent to all 203 diagnostic radiology residency programs accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. Chief residents at 21 institutions were surveyed by phone or in person. Directors of residency programs in the Graduate Medical Education Directory received the survey electronically. RESULTS: Responses were received from 99 (68 university, 31 private practice) of the 203 programs. Nine (9%) reported both a decreased number of residents and a subsequent increase in call obligations. First-year residents generally began to accept calls with a senior resident or alone at a median of 6 months, although 15 (48%) private practice programs required them to accept calls alone before this time. First-year residents at university programs (31%) were more likely to assume call duties during the first 6 months accompanied by a senior resident. Maximum time before 1st-year residents started going on call was 13 months. CONCLUSION: Call obligations remain a resident responsibility. University and private practice programs differ more than level 1 and non-level 1 trauma centers.     

Global Radiology Training Prevalence Among Radiology Residency Programs

ObjectiveGlobal Radiology aims to enhance access to medical imaging services and education, worldwide. To date, few reports have evaluated Global Radiology Training (GRT) in radiology residency programs. Here, we examined how radiology residency programs perceive and incorporate GRT into their curriculum, and how this information is promoted online.MethodsTwo methods were used to examine the current state of GRT. First, radiology residency program directors (identified via the Association of Program Directors in Radiology) were surveyed on topics including: Electives, institutional partnerships, resident and faculty involvement, inquiry by prospective residents, and barriers to implementation. Second, radiology residency program websites (n = 193) were examined for existing GRT on the programs’ publicly available webpages.ResultsThere were 62 survey responses (response rate of 19%). Thirty-eight percent (24/62) of residency programs offered a Global Radiology elective to their residents within the past academic year and 27% (17/62) of programs have active affiliations with medical institutions outside of the United States. Eighty-four percent of program directors (52/62) received questions from residency applicants regarding opportunities to participate in Global Radiology. Furthermore, only 13% (26/193) of all radiology residency programs listed at least one GRT elective on their webpage.DiscussionGRT in radiology residency is more widely available than previously reported and has been underrepresented on residency program websites. In the present survey, the majority of radiology residency program directors reported that radiology is an important component of Global Health, one-third of whom have already incorporated the subject into their curriculum. However, most common barriers to GRT include, perceived lack of time in the curriculum and lack of faculty interest. The high prevalence of inquiry from residency program applicants about GRT suggests that it may be a notable factor for applicants during the ranking process. Programs build up GRT may choose to share related information seeking to may choose to emphasize work in Global Radiology on their program webpages.     

Trends in Radiology Fellowship Training: A Canadian Review 2009-2011

Purpose

To assess the percentage, type, and location of radiology fellowships chosen by graduating Canadian residents between 2009 and 2011.

Methods

A short e-mail questionnaire was sent to the radiology program directors at all 16 institutions in Canada that provide English or French residency. The responses were collected between December 6, 2010, and May 20, 2011.

Results

A 75% response rate was observed for the survey: 76%–79% residents were enrolled in radiology fellowship training. In 2009–2010, 72%–73% of residents remained in Canada. This dropped to 51% in 2011. In 2009–2010, 22%–23% of residents chose U.S.-based radiology training. This rose to 49% in 2011. Europe was chosen by 0%–4% of residents: all of whom were French-speaking residents, and all programs were in France. Relatively consistent percentages of radiology residents choose abdominal (19%–30%), cardiac (4%–7%), musculoskeletal (12%–20%), and pediatrics (2%–5%) from year to year. Greater variability was noted in chest (2%–9%), women's imaging (0%–14%), intervention radiology (6%–18%), and neuroradiology (2%–18%). Radiology fellowships in split subspecialties, which were available at a small number of institutions, were chosen by 8%–9% of the residents.

Conclusions

Nearly 4 of 5 residents choose radiology fellowship training. In 2011, there was a 2-fold increase in the number of residents who chose training in the United States. This may be a 1-year outlier but should be observed. A wide range of fellowships were chosen, with consistent numbers in some core fellowships and variability in others year to year. Limited exploration of the rationale for, or employability value of, radiology fellowship choices has been done in Canada. Nearly 1 of 10 residents chose split radiology fellowships, an option limited by availability at few centers. The value of expanding this option is worthy of investigation.     

Emergency department coverage by academic departments of radiology

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to survey academic radiology departments to determine how emergency radiology coverage is handled and whether there are any prerequisites for those individuals providing this coverage. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The authors developed a simple two-page survey and sent it to a total of 608 program directors, chiefs of diagnostic radiology, chairpersons, and chief residents at academic departments of radiology. RESULTS: Of the 608 surveys sent, 278 (46%) were returned. More than half of the departments have an emergency radiology section that provides "wet read" coverage during the day, and most academic departments cover the emergency department during the night and on weekends. Nighttime and weekend coverage is handled mostly by residents. Most departments give time off for lunch, with few other prerequisites for faculty who provide emergency coverage. Sixty percent of the departments have teleradiology capability, and many use it for emergency department coverage. CONCLUSION: These results can serve as the basis for discussion and comparison with other institutions regarding a variety of aspects of emergency department coverage.     

Clinical consequences of misinterpretations of neuroradiologic CT scans by on-call radiology residents

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Studies have looked at the accuracy of radiologic interpretations by radiology residents as compared with staff radiologists with regard to emergency room plain films, emergency room body CT scans, and trauma head CT scans; however, to our knowledge, no study has evaluated on-call resident interpretations of all types of neuroradiologic CT scans. Both as a part of our departmental quality control program and to address concerns of clinical services about misinterpretation of neuroradiologic CT scans by on-call radiology residents, we evaluated the frequency of incorrect preliminary interpretations of neuroradiologic CT scans by on-call radiology residents and the effect of such misinterpretations on clinical management and patient outcome. METHODS: As determined by the staff neuroradiologist the next day, all potentially clinically significant changes to preliminary reports of emergency neuroradiologic CT scans rendered by on-call radiology residents were recorded over a 9-month period. A panel of neuroradiologists reviewed and graded all the changed cases by consensus. An emergency department staff physician reviewed medical records of all submitted cases to determine clinical consequences of the misinterpretations. RESULTS: Significant misinterpretations were made in 21 (0.9%) of 2388 cases during the study period. There was a significant change in patient management in 12 of the cases, with a potentially serious change in patient outcome in two cases (0.08%). CONCLUSION: On-call radiology residents have a low rate of significant misinterpretations of neuroradiologic CT scans, and the potential to affect patient outcome is rare.     

RadioGraphics: a Web-based model for radiology resident self-education

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The residency review committee (RRC) for diagnostic radiology of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education mandates core competencies including computer-aided applications in medicine. The purpose of this review was to evaluate the use of RadioGraphics' on-line CME to satisfy the RRC requirements. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty radiology residents at a university training program read the same four articles in the on-line version of RadioGraphics. Before reading each article, the residents took the associated CME pre-test and, after completing the article, the CME post-test. Each resident completed a survey to evaluate the quality of the resident experience using RadioGraphics' CME on-line program after completing the four articles and tests. RESULTS: The combined mean scores of all four articles pre-test and post-test scores were 5.6 and 9.3. Significant improvement in the test scores was determined by a student t-test (P < .001). Fourteen residents agreed and one resident disagreed with the statement that the modules were time effective. Nineteen of 20 residents agreed with the statement that valuable information for future practice was gained and that they would continue to use RadioGraphics for CME in the future. All of the residents agreed with the statement that the experience satisfied the residency's requirement to teach computer skills appropriate for ongoing learning. CONCLUSION: RadioGraphics' on-line CME an effective method to teach residents skills required by the RRC.     

Medical students and radiology residents: can they learn as effectively with the same educational materials?

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of resident-prepared, independent-learning materials for teaching chest radiology to medical students. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Students from three U.S. medical schools enrolled in radiology clerkships between March 1998 and June 1998 were randomly divided into control (n = 27) and experimental (n = 31) groups. The experimental group studied 12 chest radiology independent-learning cases (intervention) used to teach radiology residents in a previous study. Both groups took a 36-item, multiple-choice test (previously used to test radiology residents) on three occasions (before intervention [pretest], 1 day after intervention [posttest], and 2-4 weeks after intervention [final examination]). Student scores were then compared with resident scores. RESULTS: Mean scores were similar across institutions at pretest, but increases at posttest and final examination scores differed across time, school, and group (P < .005). Mean differences in scores between experimental and control groups at pretest, posttest, and 2-4-week final examination were -0.22, 9.79, and 9.14, respectively, demonstrating increased performance at posttesting that remained present (though slightly attenuated) 2-4 weeks later. Comparing performance, residents had mean pretest scores of 19.2 and students of 14.1, a five-point difference attributable to the residents' greater experience. Both residents and students gained approximately nine points at posttest. At final examination, the difference between residents and students was only 1.4 points, suggesting the experimental program (teaching materials) brought students close to the long-term retention shown by residents. CONCLUSION: Independent study of resident-prepared chest radiology teaching cases increased medical student knowledge for at least 2 or 4 weeks after instruction. Although starting at lower knowledge levels, students experienced gains in knowledge comparable to those of residents, suggesting the same materials can be used to teach both students and residents.     

Computer aided diagnosis of bone tumors.

Four radiologists, three of whom having no special expertise in bone tumor radiology, analysed 177 bone tumors. One of the radiologists, using a computer aided bone tumor program, performed significantly better than the other two at a comparable level of training and was able to compete successfully with the fourth radiologist experienced in bone diagnosis. The results validate the assumption that computer aided diagnostic programs may improve the diagnostic accuracy of radiologists having limited experience with the problem at hand.     

Resident bullying in diagnostic radiology

PurposeWorkplace bullying has been reported in multiple medical specialties outside of diagnostic radiology within the United States. The purpose of this study was to survey diagnostic radiology residents in the United States to determine if: (1) residents had experienced bullying, (2) residents had witnessed bullying of other residents, (3) residents were aware of zero-tolerance policy for workplace bullying at their institution, (4) residents were aware of no retaliation policies for reporting bullying at their institution.Materials and methodsIn December 2017, a weekly E-mail for 4 weeks was sent to diagnostic radiology residents in the United States (residents) who had attended the July 2017, September 2017 and October 2017 4-week American Institute for Radiologic Pathology (AIRP) resident course to participate in an online, anonymous, voluntary survey.Results28% of radiology resident respondents reported workplace bullying during their residency. One third of radiology residents have witnessed workplace bullying of another radiology resident at their facility. Approximately one half (48%) of respondents did not know if their institution had a zero-tolerance policy for workplace bullying, and approximately one half (55%) of respondents did not know if their institution had a no retaliation policy for reporting workplace bullying.ConclusionOur survey of diagnostic radiology residents across the United States confirms workplace bullying during residency, and the opportunity for implementation of zero-tolerance and zero retaliation policies for reporting workplace bullying in residency training institutions.     

Radiology residency eCurriculum developed in-house: evaluation of benefits and weaknesses

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate residents' use of a radiology curriculum CD-ROM designed to provide ready access to the department's curricula, study materials, and Internet resources. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A survey questionnaire eliciting feedback about the usability and value of the CD-ROM, as well as suggestions for future modifications in its content, was distributed to radiology residents (n = 26) in the authors' training program. Twenty-three (88%) of the residents responded to the survey. RESULTS: Eighteen (78%) of the 23 respondents reported having used the CD-ROM at least once, and 22 (96%) considered the CD-ROM an asset to the residency program. Fourteen (61%) identified the centralization of important information as the greatest benefit of the CD-ROM. Nonetheless, a majority continued to rely on more traditional methods of obtaining information essential to their work and studies. Twelve (52%) of the 23 residents reported that daily use of the material stored on the CD-ROM would be encouraged by placing it on a departmental intranet, while seven (30%) preferred the addition of dedicated computers and the provision of study space in the department. CONCLUSION: The CD-ROM has not been fully integrated into the residency program. The greatest obstacle to its use is the lack of computer resources in the department.     

Evaluation of clinical experience in a radiology residency program with quantitative profiling: rationale,methods, and application

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The author developed a technique for residency program evaluation, called "quantitative profiling," that is based on computer retrieval of radiologic reports. The hypothesis was that it would provide insights into the contributions of residents to clinical service, measures of resident experience and productivity for program evaluation, and benchmarks for comparison. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The radiology residency program of a major teaching hospital was studied retrospectively from 1989 to 1997. The number of radiologic reports signed by individual residents and faculty members was retrieved. The clinical experience of the 1993-1997 cohort of residents was described according to subspecialty area and modality. RESULTS: Residents signed 46.5% of all reports, with a mean total of 14,445 reports +/- 1,292 per resident during the entire residency. The distribution of examinations was as follows: thoracic, 42.1%; musculoskeletal, 26.1%; abdominal, 13.4%; sonography, 8.7%; neuroradiology, 4.3%; nuclear, 2.4%; breast, 1.6%; and vascular, 1.4%. The most frequently reported results were for one-view chest radiography. CONCLUSION: Quantitative profiling can help track the range and progress of resident experience, help determine the deployment of residents, and provide empirical data upon which decisions to modify residency programs may be based.     

Effectiveness of resident-prepared conferences in teaching imaging utilization guidelines to radiology residents

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The authors evaluated the effectiveness of a resident-prepared conference series for teaching imaging utilization guidelines to radiology residents. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Brown University radiology residents (n = 17) gave 61 presentations on imaging utilization to their colleagues during 16 1-hour conferences. The residents were later examined on the topics presented and surveyed about their familiarity with the American College of Radiology appropriateness criteria, their exposure to issues of cost-effectiveness, and their degree of confidence in providing imaging consultation. The same examination and survey were administered to control residents from the University of Wisconsin (n = 14) and the Oregon Health Sciences University (n = 14). Scores were compared by using linear regression and Wilcoxon rank sum tests. RESULTS: Controlling for years in radiology residency, residents at Brown scored on average 16.0% (standard error = 2.2%) higher than residents at the other universities (P < .001). Controlling for institution, 3rd- and 4th-year residents scored on average 7.4% (standard error = 2.1%) higher than 1st- and 2nd-year residents (P = .001). Brown residents expressed more familiarity with American College of Radiology appropriateness criteria and appeared to have more exposure to cost-effectiveness issues in conferences than residents at Wisconsin or Oregon Health Sciences University (P < .005). Residents from the three universities did not differ in their level of confidence in providing imaging consultation. CONCLUSION: Resident-prepared conferences are an effective means of teaching imaging utilization guidelines to residents, but they do not affect the residents' perception of their ability to provide imaging consultation.     

First-Year Radiology Residents Teaching Anatomy to First-Year Medical Students: A Symbiotic Relationship

ObjectivesOur institution has developed an educational program in which first-year radiology residents teach first-year medical students during gross anatomy laboratory sessions. The purpose of this study is to assess the impact of this program on medical student knowledge and perceptions of radiology, and on resident attitudes toward teaching.Materials and MethodsFirst-year resident pairs taught small groups of medical students during weekly 15-minute interactive sessions, and were evaluated on teaching skills by senior residents. A survey about attitudes toward radiology and a knowledge quiz were sent to the medical students, and a survey about attitudes toward teaching was sent to the first-year radiology residents, both pre-course and post-course.ResultsStudents’ radiology knowledge significantly increased between the pre-course and post-course survey across all categories tested (P < 0.001). Additionally, there were significant improvements in terms of students’ confidence in radiologic anatomy skills, perceived importance of radiology for medical training, familiarity with the field of radiology, and perception that radiologists are friendly (P < 0.001). Radiology residents felt more confident in their teaching proficiency (P < 0.001) by the conclusion of the course.ConclusionsResident-led small-group teaching sessions during anatomy laboratory are mutually beneficial for medical students and radiology residents. The program also allows radiology residents to be exposed early on in residency to teaching and academic medicine.     

The association of departmental leadership gender with that of faculty and residents in radiology

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Although the number of women graduating from medical school continues to increase, their representation in radiology residency programs has not increased over the past 10 years. We examined whether the gender of radiology faculty and residents differed according to the gender of the departmental leadership. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We issued an anonymous Web-based survey via e-mail to all 188 radiology residency program directors listed in the Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database (FREIDA Online). Data regarding the gender of the department chairperson, residency program director, faculty, and residents were collected. The institutional review board granted a waiver for this study, and all subjects provided informed consent. RESULTS: Of the 84 program directors who responded, 9 (10.7%) were chaired by females and 75 (89.3%) by males; residency program director positions were held by 36 (42.9%) females and 48 (57.1%) males. More programs were located in the northeastern United States (n = 31, 36.9%) than in any other region, and more were self-described as academic (n = 36, 42.9%) than any other practice type. Programs that were led by a male chairperson had a similar proportion of female faculty (25.2% versus 27.3%; P = .322) and residents (26.2% versus 27.4%; P = .065) compared with those led by a female. Similarly, radiology departments with a male residency program director had a similar proportion of female residents (24.8% versus 28.7%; P = .055) compared with programs with a female residency program director. CONCLUSION: The gender composition of radiology faculty and residents does not differ significantly according to the gender of the departmental chairperson or residency program director. Nevertheless, there continues to be a disparity in the representation of women among radiology faculty and residents.     

Reshaping the emergency radiology call experience after the merger of two programs: the Yale experience

In the summer of 2013, 16 radiology residents from the Hospital of Saint Raphael (HSR) joined the 38 residents of Yale-New Haven Hospital (YNHH) to become a single 54-resident program. This posed a significant challenge given the number of residents and very different call structures of the two institutions. After evaluating the emergency radiology volume at both hospitals, it was determined that implementing YNHH’s traditional call system at HSR would increase call by approximately 25 %. In order to negate this increase, the SRC rotation was created at HSR. This Monday–Friday rotation covered by R3s starts at 1 p.m. with afternoon conference. Residents then read cases on a subspecialty service from 2–5 p.m. and then cover the entire hospital until 10 p.m. with a single attending. Because of this rotation, call did not increase for the YNHH residents and third year residents were provided with increased responsibility. For programs not undergoing a merger, call rotations can also be extremely beneficial. These rotations allow third year residents to have more “call-free” weeks prior to the ABR core exam. Also, patient care can be improved, as the shift length for on-call residents is reduced, which has been shown to improve accuracy.     

Communication in the diagnostic mammography suite: implications for practice and training

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The diagnostic mammography suite is a microcosm of challenging physician-patient communication in radiology. Little has been written about communication practices in the diagnostic mammography suite, the effect of this communication on both physicians and patients, and implications for radiology training programs. We surveyed radiology residents and staff about communication training, practices, and experiences communicating directly with patients in the diagnostic mammography suite. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We asked the membership of the Association of Program Directors in Radiology to disseminate surveys to radiology residents and staff radiologists in their institutions. We analyzed response frequencies and correlations. RESULTS: We received responses from 142 residents and 120 staff radiologists. More than half of staff respondents spoke personally with every patient who had an abnormal diagnostic mammogram; 37% felt they had inadequate time to do so. Most residents and staff highly rated their own communication skills and confidence in ability to explain results and respond to patients' emotions, but experienced stress doing so. A majority of respondents reported no formal communication skills education after medical school. Twenty-nine percent of staff respondents regularly observed residents' communication with patients and 39% of residents reported receiving feedback about their communication. Residents' opportunities to observe staff communicate with a patient and to receive feedback on their own patient interactions were correlated with self-rated communication skill and confidence in ability to respond to patients' emotions (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Radiologists engage in challenging and stressful patient communication interactions. There is a paucity of educational curricula on interpersonal and communication skills in radiology. This has implications for both patient and physician satisfaction and patient outcomes.     

Academic radiology and the emergency department: does it need changing?

RATIONAL AND OBJECTIVES: The increasing importance of imaging for both diagnosis and management in patient care has resulted in a demand for radiology services 7 days a week, 24 hours a day, especially in the emergency department (ED). We hypothesized the resident preliminary reports were better than generalist radiology interpretations, although inferior to subspecialty interpretations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Total radiology volume through our Level I pediatric and adult academic trauma ED was obtained from the radiology information system. We conducted a literature search for error and discordant rates between radiologists of varying experience. For a 2-week prospective period, all preliminary reports generated by the residents and final interpretations were collected. Significant changes in the report were tabulated. RESULTS: The ED requested 72,886 imaging studies in 2004 (16% of the total radiology department volume). In a 2-week period, 12 of 1929 (0.6%) preliminary reports by residents were discordant to the final subspecialty dictation. In the 15 peer-reviewed publications documenting error rates in radiology, the error rate between American Board of Radiology (ABR)-certified radiologists is greater than that between residents and subspecialists in the literature and in our study. However, the perceived error rate by clinicians outside radiology is significantly higher. CONCLUSION: Sixteen percent of the volume of imaging studies comes through the ED. The residents handle off-hours cases with a radiology-detected error rate below the error rate between ABR-certified radiologists. To decrease the perceived clinician-identified error rate, we need to change how academic radiology handles ED cases.     

A survey evaluating the beliefs of radiology residency program directors regarding incorporation of numeric standards into accreditation standards

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Numeric standards do not exist for the evaluation and comparison of radiology resident education. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education has recently proposed the evaluation and assessment of residents by using numeric values for films read in various radiology modalities. The purpose of this study was to evaluate radiology residency program directors' perceived need for numeric standards for radiology residency programs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Program directors were surveyed via a three-part questionnaire. Initial contact was made by e-mail, with follow-up by telephone if necessary. The survey questions were: (1) Do you feel that a need exists for a set of numerical standards for the number of films read by radiology residents in each of the various subspecialties? (2) Specify the needs that you see. (3) What are the barriers and disadvantages to acquiring such data? RESULTS: Survey responses were received from 44 of 192 radiology residency programs (23% response rate). Overall, 34 (77%) of 44 program directors were against implementation of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education proposal, whereas 8 (18%) of 44 program directors were in favor of the proposal and 2 (5%) of 44 were undecided. A variety of reasons, both for and against the proposal, were provided by program directors. CONCLUSION: Among the program directors responding to the survey, there was strong opposition to implementation of mandatory standards for specific numbers of radiologic examinations by residents as the basis for program accreditation.     

Non-interventional Radiology Fellowship Programs: What Is Out There?

ObjectiveTo determine the spectrum of non-interventional radiology fellowship programs in institutions that offer both a radiology residency program and one or more non-interventional radiology fellowship programs.MethodsInstitutions offering both radiology residency and non-interventional radiology fellowship programs were identified using publicly available websites. The non-interventional radiology fellowship programs were categorized into “traditional” (neuroradiology, breast imaging, abdominal imaging, musculoskeletal imaging, thoracic imaging, pediatric radiology, and nuclear medicine) and “nontraditional” fellowship programs. The nontraditional programs were stratified into four categories: a) Combinations of traditional fellowships; b) Focused nontraditional fellowships; c) Combinations of traditional and focused nontraditional fellowships (excluding traditional-traditional combinations); and d) Mandatory two-year fellowships. The distributions of the different types of traditional and nontraditional fellowship programs were evaluated.Results555 fellowship programs were identified in 113 institutions that offered both radiology residency and non-interventional radiology fellowship programs. 73.33% (407/555) of the programs were traditional fellowships, and 26.66% (148/555) were nontraditional fellowships. The 148 nontraditional fellowship programs were comprised of 41 different types of programs, 23 types of which were unique to and offered exclusively at specific institutions. 38.08% of the traditional fellowship programs were Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) accredited, while only 16.21% (24/148) of the nontraditional fellowship programs were ACGME-accredited.ConclusionsThe nontraditional non-interventional radiology fellowship programs are formed by a heterogeneous group of programs, some of which are offered exclusively at a single institution. Awareness of the types of existing programs would help radiology residents in making a more informed decision regarding their fellowship training.