Faculty Bibliography

Purpose: Quantification of tendon retraction is paramount in the surgical decision-making algorithm for proximal hamstring avulsion injury. Not only is it used to determine if surgery is indicated, but it may lead the surgeon to change the pre-operative plan from a more aesthetically-appealing gluteal fold incision to a more extensile, longitudinally-based proximal thigh incision. However, the hamstring origin on the ischial tuberosity is broad. Variability in location on the ischial tuberosity used as the proximal landmark and occasional difficulty in locating the proximal tendon stump may lead to differences in perceived retraction, altering the surgical decision making process. We hypothesize there will be substantial variability in the ischial tuberosity location used as the proximal marker, not only between orthopaedists and radiologists, but also amongst radiologists themselves. Materials and Methods: Two surveys were created for the purpose of this study. One survey was sent to members of the Society of Skeletal Radiology (SSR), querying the preferred ischial tuberosity landmark, perceived difficulties in quantifying retraction, and the impact of radiology measurements on clinical decision making. A similar survey, with added questions on the impact of imaging findings in clinical management was approved and posted onto the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine (AOSSM) website. Results: Two hundred and fifteen SSR members responded to the survey. For cases of complete and partial hamstring avulsion, there was variability among musculoskeletal (MSK) radiologists in the proximal landmark used for quantification of retraction, with n = 100 (47%) using the conjoint tendon origin, n = 84 (39%) using the semimembranosus tendon origin, and n = 31(14%) using the posterior-inferior edge of the ischial tuberosity. Difficulty in determining location of the retracted tendon stump was reported by n = 93(44%) of MSK radiologists. Most MSK radiologists (n = 118, 55%) reported measurements in their dictation and were unsure as to whether or not they are used to guide clinical management. Results of the second survey posted by AOSSM will be subsequently reported when available. Conclusion: Differences in choosing an ischial tuberosity landmark and occasional difficulty in locating the proximal tendon stump may lead to substantial variability in measured tendon retraction among MSK radiologists in cases of proximal hamstring avulsion. Radiologists should consider a standardized approach to measuring tendon retraction or should clearly stipulate the location of the proximal landmark in their reports

The primary goal of comparative effectiveness research (CER) is to define the optimal choice among alternative diagnostic and interventional strategies for a given clinical scenario among major stakeholders in the health care system. In an era where health care decision makers are demanding greater evidence of improved patient outcomes from the use of medical technologies, musculoskeletal (MSK) imagers must be more engaged in generating quality CER. We provide an overview of CER and its expanding role in U.S. health care, the current funding environment for CER and MSK imaging, potential areas for CER in MSK radiology, and a discussion of foreseeable challenges for CER in MSK imaging.

OBJECTIVE: The number of 4th-year medical student applications to the field of diagnostic radiology has decreased from 2009-2015. The purpose of this study was to learn how radiology departments are recruiting medical students. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An anonymous online survey hyperlink was distributed to the members of the Society of Chairs of Academic Radiology Departments regarding both innovative and proven recruitment strategies. The results were synthesized with a recently published survey of medical students about factors influencing them to go into radiology. RESULTS: Forty of 126 radiology departments completed the survey. Most felt that radiology exposure and curricula require alteration given recent downward trends in medical student applications. A majority (79%) had changed their outreach to medical students in response to these trends. The responding department chairs felt that interactive learning while on rotation was the most important strategy for recruitment. The presence of a diversity program, dedicated medical school educator, or rotating daily assignment for students did not affect the likelihood of filling residency spots in the main match. CONCLUSION: Many radiology departments are changing their outreach to medical students to improve recruitment. Effective strategies to focus on include early active outreach by involving students in the radiology department, thereby framing radiologists as clinicians.

BACKGROUND: To preserve radiology rounds in the changing health care environment, we have introduced virtual radiology rounds, an initiative enabling clinicians to remotely review imaging studies with the radiologist. OBJECTIVE: We describe our initial experience with virtual radiology rounds and referring provider impressions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Virtual radiology rounds, a web-based conference, use remote sharing of radiology workstations. Participants discuss imaging studies by speakerphone. Virtual radiology rounds were piloted with the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) and the Congenital Cardiovascular Care Unit (CCVCU). Providers completed a survey assessing the perceived impact and overall value of virtual radiology rounds on patient care using a 10-point scale. Pediatric radiologists participating in virtual radiology rounds completed a survey assessing technical, educational and clinical aspects of this methodology. RESULTS: Sixteen providers responded to the survey; 9 NICU and 7 CCVCU staff (physicians, nurse practitioners and fellows). Virtual radiology rounds occurred 4-5 sessions/week with an average of 6.4 studies. Clinicians rated confidence in their own image interpretation with a 7.4 average rating for NICU and 7.5 average rating for CCVCU. Clinicians unanimously rated virtual radiology rounds as adding value. NICU staff preferred virtual radiology rounds to traditional rounds and CCVCU staff supported their new participation in virtual radiology rounds. Four of the five pediatric radiologists participating in virtual radiology rounds responded to the survey reporting virtual radiology rounds to be easy to facilitate (average rating: 9.3), to moderately impact interpretation of imaging studies (average rating: 6), and to provide substantial educational value for radiologists (average rating: 8.3). All pediatric radiologists felt strongly that virtual radiology rounds enable increased integration of the radiologist into the clinical care team (average rating: 8.8). CONCLUSION: Virtual radiology rounds are a viable alternative to radiology rounds enabling improved patient care and education of providers.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to report the investigators' preliminary experience in the implementation of a "virtual consult" (VC) system enabling consultations between radiologists and referring physicians in physically remote locations throughout their enterprise. METHODS: Referrers and radiologists directly access the VC through the electronic medical record and PACS, respectively. Referrers may click a VC link associated with any examination report to instant message the appropriate subspecialist radiologist, who receives an alert allowing automatic loading of the examination. The radiologist and referrer may then discuss the examination via instant messaging as well as launch a real-time screen-share of the radiologist's PACS display, with the option for either participant to control the display. Radiologists' and referrers' feedback was evaluated after the institution's first 110 VC sessions. RESULTS: Referrers' most common specialties were emergency medicine (27.3%) and internal medicine (13.6%); radiologists' most common subspecialties were abdominal (33.6%) and thoracic (16.4%) imaging. Screen-shares lasted on average 12 +/- 16 minutes. From 80% to 90% of referrers agreed that the VC was easy to use, improved their understanding of the radiology report, affected patient management, and enhanced radiologists' role. Referrers found the VC to be particularly useful when traditional consultation was difficult because of location or time constraints or when seeking a quick response to a targeted question. Radiologists recognized referrers' positive response to the VC, although they tended to view the VC as disruptive to normal workflow. CONCLUSIONS: The VC addresses a key challenge in the current era of digital radiology practice and provides added value to referrers, though continued radiologists' workflow optimization is warranted.

The new interventional radiology (IR) pathways have generated much discussion with articles and editorials pointing out perceived advantages and disadvantages compared to the current pathways. To briefly review, under the new system, there are three pathways to enter IR: the integrated (INT) IR residency, the independent (IND) IR residency, and the early specialization in interventional radiology (ESIR) program. The pathways have been designed to provide maximum flexibility to programs for implementation and to radiology residents for planning their subspecialty training. As a result, there are many potential permutations for these training programs, and understanding the variety of options can be a challenge at first. We offer three potential solutions, based on the different circumstances or requirements a department might face. The first two solutions involve integrated programs created through newly funded and converted diagnostic radiology slots, respectively. The third involves establishing ESIR and IND programs only. Hopefully, the examples provided will be useful for those currently planning for the future of their IR training programs.

PURPOSE: Incidental ovarian cysts are frequently detected on imaging. Despite published follow-up consensus statements, there remains variability in radiologist follow-up recommendations and clinician practice patterns. The aim of this study was to evaluate if collaborative ovarian cyst management recommendations and a radiologist decision support tool can improve adherence to follow-up recommendations. METHODS: Gynecologic oncologists and abdominal radiologists convened to develop collaborative institutional recommendations for the management of incidental, asymptomatic simple ovarian cysts detected on ultrasound, CT, and MRI. The recommendations were developed by modifying the published consensus recommendations developed by the Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound on the basis of local practice patterns and the experience of the group members. A less formal process involved the circulation of the published consensus recommendations, followed by suggestions for revisions and subsequent consensus, in similar fashion to the ACR Incidental Findings Committee II. The recommendations were developed by building on the published work of experienced groups to provide the authors' medical community with a set of recommendations that could be endorsed by both the Department of Gynecology and the Department of Radiology to provide supportive guidance to the clinicians who manage incidental ovarian cysts. The recommendations were integrated into a radiologist decision support tool accessible from the dictation software. Nine months after tool launch, institutional review board approval was obtained, and radiology reports mentioning ovarian cysts in the prior 34 months were retrospectively reviewed. For cysts detected on ultrasound, adherence rates to Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound recommendations were calculated for examinations before tool launch and compared with adherence rates to the collaborative institutional recommendations after tool launch. Additionally, electronic medical records were reviewed to determine the follow-up chosen by the clinician. RESULTS: For cysts detected on ultrasound, radiologist adherence to recommendations improved from 50% (98 of 197) to 80% (111 of 139) (P < .05). Overmanagement decreased from 34% (67 of 197) to 10% (14 of 139) (P < .05). A recommendation was considered "overmanaged" if the radiologist recommended follow-up when it was not indicated or if the recommended follow-up time was at a shorter interval than indicated. Clinician adherence to radiologist recommendations showed statistically nonsignificant improvement from 49% (36 of 73) to 57% (27 of 47) (P = .5034). CONCLUSIONS: Management recommendations developed through collaboration with clinicians may help standardize follow-up of ovarian cysts and reduce overutilization.

Burnout is a concern for radiologists. The burnout rate is greater among diagnostic radiologists than the mean for all physicians, while radiation oncologists have a slightly lower burnout rate. Burnout can result in unprofessional behavior, thoughts of suicide, premature retirement, and errors in patient care. Strategies to reduce burnout include addressing the sources of job dissatisfaction, instilling lifestyle balance, finding reasons to work other than money, improving money management, developing a support group, and seeking help when needed.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to survey fourth-year medical students, both those choosing and those not choosing diagnostic radiology as their specialty, regarding factors influencing their choice of specialty and their perceptions of radiology. METHODS: A voluntary anonymous online survey hyperlink was sent to 141 US medical schools for distribution to fourth-year students. Topics included demographics, radiology education, specialty choice and influencing factors, and opinions of radiology. RESULTS: A representative sampling (7%) of 2015 fourth-year medical students (n = 1,219; 51% men, 49% women) participated: 7% were applying in radiology and 93% were not. For respondents applying in radiology, the most important factor was intellectual challenge. For respondents applying in nonradiology specialties, degree of patient contact was the most important factor in the decision not to choose radiology; job market was not listed as a top-three factor. Women were less likely than men to apply in radiology (P < .001), with radiology selected by 11.8% of men (56 of 476) and only 2.8% of women (13 of 459). Respondents self-identifying as Asian had a significantly higher (P = .015) likelihood of selecting radiology (19 of 156 [12.2%]) than all other races combined (44 of 723 [6.1%]). Respondents at medical schools with required dedicated medical imaging rotations were more likely to choose radiology as a specialty, but most schools still do not require the clerkship (82%). CONCLUSIONS: The reasons fourth-year medical students choose, or do not choose, diagnostic radiology as a specialty are multifactorial, but noncontrollable factors, such as the job market, proved less compelling than controllable factors, such as taking a radiology rotation.