Faculty Bibliography

CT technologists, like radiologists, are at risk of increased stress and burnout due to ever increasing clinical and workload demands. To mitigate these issues, radiology facilities need to be prepared to actively address and resolve issues that impact the technologist satisfaction. At our institution, a Process Improvement Committee was formed to identify and alleviate workplace stressors faced by CT technologists. As a result of the initiative, our CT department has evolved into a technologist-driven department in which experienced and effective technologists play a large role in fostering efficient and patient-centered care, while feeling empowered to function as leaders in their work environment. In this article, a senior CT technologist provides a first-hand account of the process changes from the technologist's perspective, focusing on strategies for establishing a supportive system that allows technologists to thrive in providing patient-centered care even in the busiest of clinical contexts.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to assess recent trends in US radiology practice consolidation. METHODS:Radiologist practice characteristics were obtained from the Medicare Physician Compare database for 2014 and 2018. Radiologists were classified on the basis of their largest identifiable practice affiliations. Single-specialty radiology practices were identified using practice names. Temporal trends in practice sizes were assessed. RESULTS:At the individual radiologist level from 2014 to 2018, the fraction of all radiologists in groups with 1 or 2 members declined from 3.2% to 2.1%, 3 to 9 members from 10.2% to 6.7%, 10 to 24 members from 18.2% to 14.1%, 25 to 49 members from 16.6% to 15.1%, and 50 to 99 members from 13.3% to 11.5%. In contrast, the fraction in groups with 100 to 499 members increased from 15.7% to 21.8% and with ≥500 members from 22.9% to 28.7%. At the practice level, the fraction of all radiologists' practices with 1 or 2 members decreased from 26.9% to 22.8%, whereas the fraction with 100 to 499 members increased from 7.6% to 10.2% and with ≥500 members from 2.5% to 4.1%. Similar shifts were present for single-specialty radiology practices and all geographic regions nationally. The 30,492 radiologists identified in 2014 were affiliated with 4,908 group practices, including 2,812 single-specialty practices. In comparison, the 32,096 radiologists identified in 2018 were affiliated with 4,193 group practices (a 14.6% decline), including 2,216 single-specialty practices (a 21.2% decline). CONCLUSIONS:In very recent years, the US radiologist workforce has consolidated, leading to increased practice sizes and a substantial decline in the number of distinct practices, disproportionately affecting single-specialty radiology practices. The impact of this consolidation on cost, quality, and patient access merits further attention.

OBJECTIVE. The objective of this article is to assess radiologist concordance in characterizing thyroid nodules using the American College of Radiology Thyroid Imaging Reporting and Data System (TI-RADS), focusing on the effect of radiologist experience on reader concordance. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Three experienced and three less experienced radiologists assessed 150 thyroid nodules using the TI-RADS lexicon. Percent concordance was determined for various endpoints. RESULTS. Interreader concordance for the five TI-RADS categories was 87.2% for shape, 81.2% for composition, 76.1% for echogenicity, 72.9% for margins, and 69.8% for echogenic foci. Concordance for individual features was 96.3% for rim calcifications, 90.8% for macrocalcifications, 90.1% for spongiform, 83.5% for comet tail artifact, and 77.7% for punctate echogenic foci. Concordance for the TI-RADS level and recommendation for fine-needle aspiration (FNA) were 50.4% and 78.9%, respectively. Concordance was significantly (p < 0.05) higher for less experienced readers in identifying margins (84.3% vs 67.4%), echogenic foci (76.9% vs 69.3%), comet tail artifact (89.6% vs 79.2%), and punctate echogenic foci (85.3% vs 75.5%), and lower for peripheral rim calcifications (95.0% vs 97.8 %), but was not different (p > 0.05) for the remaining categories and features. CONCLUSION. A range of TI-RADS categories, features, and recommendations for FNA had generally moderate interreader agreement among six radiologists. Our results show that concordance for numerous characteristics was significantly higher for the less experienced versus the more experienced readers. These results suggest that less experienced readers relied more on the explicit TI-RADS criteria, whereas the experienced radiologists partially relied on their accumulated experience when forming impressions. However, the overall TI-RADS level and recommendation for FNA were unaffected, supporting the robustness of the TI-RADS lexicon and its continued use in practice.

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study is to assess the perceptions of radiologists and emergency medicine (EM) providers regarding the quality, value, and challenges associated with using outside imaging (i.e., images obtained at facilities other than their own institution). MATERIALS AND METHODS. We surveyed radiologists and EM providers at a large academic medical center regarding their perceptions of the availability and utility of outside imaging. RESULTS. Thirty-four of 101 radiologists (33.6%) and 38 of 197 EM providers (19.3%) responded. A total of 32.4% of radiologists and 55.3% of EM providers had confidence in the quality of images from outside community facilities; 20.6% and 44.7%, respectively, had confidence in the interpretations of radiologists from these outside facilities. Only 23.5% of radiologists and 5.3% of EM physicians were confident in their ability to efficiently access reports (for outside images, 47.1% and 5.3%). Very few radiologists and EM providers had accessed imaging reports from outside facilities through an available stand-alone portal. A total of 40.6% of radiologists thought that outside reports always or frequently reduced additional imaging recommendations (62.5% for outside images); 15.6% thought that reports changed interpretations of new examinations (37.5% for outside images); and 43.8% thought that reports increased confidence in interpretations of new examinations (75.0% for outside images). A total of 29.4% of EM providers thought that access to reports from outside facilities reduced repeat imaging (64.7% for outside images), 41.2% thought that they changed diagnostic or management plans (50.0% for outside images), and 50.0% thought they increased clinical confidence (67.6% for outside images). CONCLUSION. Radiologists and EM providers perceive high value in sharing images from outside facilities, despite quality concerns. Substantial challenges exist in accessing these images and reports from outside facilities, and providers are unlikely to do so using separate systems. However, even if information technology solutions for seamless image integration are adopted, providers' lack of confidence in outside studies may remain an important barrier.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To assess characteristics of radiologists' clinical practice patterns by career stage. METHODS:Radiologists' 2016 billed services were extracted from the Medicare Physician and Other Supplier Public Use File. Billed clinical work was weighted using work relative value units. Medical school graduation years were obtained from Medicare Physician Compare. Practice patterns were summarized by decades after residency. RESULTS:Among 28,463 included radiologists, 32.7% were ≤10 years postresidency, 29.3% 11-20 years, 25.0% 21-30 years, 10.5% 31-40 years, 2.4% 41-50 years, 0.1% ≥51 years. Billed clinical work (normalized to a mean of 1.00 among all radiologists) ranged 0.92-1.07 from 1 to 40 years, decreasing to 0.64 for 41-50 years and 0.43 for ≥51 years. Computed tomography represented 34.7%-38.6% of billed clinical work from 1 to 30 years, decreasing slightly to 31.5% for 31-40 years. Magnetic resonance imaging represented 13.9%-14.3% from 1 to 30 years, decreasing slightly to 11.2% for 31-40 years. Ultrasonography represented 6.2%-11.6% across career stages. Nuclear medicine increased steadily from 1.7% for ≤10 years to 7.0% for 41-50 years. Mammography represented 9.9%-12.9% from 1 to 50 years. Radiography/fluoroscopy represented 15.1%-29.8% from 1 to 50 years, but 65.9% for ≥51 years. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The national radiologist workforce declines abruptly by more than half approximately 30 years after residency. Radiologists still working at 31-40 years, however, contribute similar billed clinical work, both overall and across modalities, as earlier career radiologists. Strategies to retain later-career radiologists in the workforce could help the specialty meet growing clinical demands, mitigate burnout in earlier career colleagues, and expand robust patient access to both basic and advanced imaging services.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Provide evidence- and expert-based recommendations for optimal use of imaging in advanced prostate cancer. Due to increases in research and utilization of novel imaging for advanced prostate cancer, this guideline is intended to outline techniques available and provide recommendations on appropriate use of imaging for specified patient subgroups. METHODS:An Expert Panel was convened with members from ASCO and the Society of Abdominal Radiology, American College of Radiology, Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, American Urological Association, American Society for Radiation Oncology, and Society of Urologic Oncology to conduct a systematic review of the literature and develop an evidence-based guideline on the optimal use of imaging for advanced prostate cancer. Representative index cases of various prostate cancer disease states are presented, including suspected high-risk disease, newly diagnosed treatment-naïve metastatic disease, suspected recurrent disease after local treatment, and progressive disease while undergoing systemic treatment. A systematic review of the literature from 2013 to August 2018 identified fully published English-language systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses, reports of rigorously conducted phase III randomized controlled trials that compared ≥ 2 imaging modalities, and noncomparative studies that reported on the efficacy of a single imaging modality. RESULTS:A total of 35 studies met inclusion criteria and form the evidence base, including 17 systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis and 18 primary research articles. RECOMMENDATIONS/CONCLUSIONS:One or more of these imaging modalities should be used for patients with advanced prostate cancer: conventional imaging (defined as computed tomography [CT], bone scan, and/or prostate magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]) and/or next-generation imaging (NGI), positron emission tomography [PET], PET/CT, PET/MRI, or whole-body MRI) according to the clinical scenario.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:CMS implemented Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) policies to cap points and remove "topped out" quality measures having extremely high national performance. We assess such policies' impact on quality measure reporting, focusing on diagnostic radiology. METHODS:Data regarding MIPS 2019 quality measures were extracted from the CMS Quality Benchmarks File and the Quality Payment Program Explore Measures search tool and summarized by collection type and specialty. RESULTS:Among 348 MIPS measure-and-collection-type combinations, 40.5% were topped out (56.6% of those with a benchmark) and 23.3% were capped. Among measures with a benchmark, the percent topped out varied (P < .001) by collection type: claims 82.7%, qualified registry 60.4%, electronic health record 11.6%. The percent capped was also greatest for claims measures (52.3%). Among 699 Qualified Clinical Data Registry (QCDR) measures, 63 had a benchmark, of which 44.4% were topped out. The percent of measures topped out also varied significantly (P < .001) by specialty, ranging from 0.0% (electrophysiology) to 95.0% (diagnostic radiology). Among 20 unique measure-and-collection-type combinations for diagnostic radiology, only one was not topped out, and 30.0% were capped. Among 20 radiology QCDR measures, 5 had a benchmark, of which 3 were topped out. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:CMS topped out measure scoring and removal policies disproportionately impact radiology, which has the highest topped out percentage among all specialties and only a single non-topped out measure. This asymmetry disproportionately impairs radiologists' MIPS flexibility and is anticipated to progress in ensuing years. Current CMS policies create a looming crisis for radiologists in MIPS. The high risk of an insufficient number of available quality measures creates an urgent need for new radiology measure development.

The current diagnostic pathway for prostate cancer has resulted in overdiagnosis and consequent overtreatment as well as underdiagnosis and missed diagnoses in many men. Multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) of the prostate has been identified as a test that could mitigate these diagnostic errors. The performance of mpMRI can vary depending on the population being studied, the execution of the MRI itself, the experience of the radiologist, whether additional biomarkers are considered and whether mpMRI-targeted biopsy is carried out alone or in addition to systematic biopsy. A number of challenges to implementation remain, such as ensuring high-quality execution and reporting of mpMRI and ensuring that this diagnostic pathway is cost-effective. Nevertheless, emerging clinical trial data support the adoption of this technology as part of the standard of care for the diagnosis of prostate cancer.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Communication and physician burn out are major issues within Radiology. This study is designed to determine the utilization and cost benefit of a hybrid computer/human communication tool to aid in relay of clinically important imaging findings. MATERIAL AND METHODS/METHODS:Analysis of the total number of tickets, (requests for assistance) placed, the type of ticket and the turn-around time was performed. Cost analysis of a hybrid computer/human communication tool over a one-year period was based on human costs as a multiple of the time to close the ticket. Additionally, we surveyed a cohort of radiologists to determine their use of and satisfaction with this system. RESULTS:14,911 tickets were placed in the 6-month period, of which 11,401 (76.4%) were requests to "Get the Referring clinician on the phone." The mean time to resolution (TTR) of these tickets was 35.3 (±17.4) minutes. Ninety percent (72/80) of radiologists reported being able to interpret a new imaging study instead of waiting to communicate results for the earlier study, compared to 50% previously. 87.5% of radiologists reported being able to read more cases after this system was introduced. The cost analysis showed a cost savings of up to $101.12 per ticket based on the length of time that the ticket took to close and the total number of placed tickets. CONCLUSIONS:A computer/human communication tool can be translated to significant time savings and potentially increasing productivity of radiologists. Additionally, the system may have a cost savings by freeing the radiologist from tracking down referring clinicians prior to communicating findings.