Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Insight into the status of neuroradiology subspecialty certification across the United States could help to understand neuroradiologists' perceived value of subspecialty certification as well as guide efforts to optimize pathways for broader voluntary certification participation. Our aim was to assess board certification characteristics of practicing US neuroradiologists. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:The American Board of Radiology public search engine was used to link Medicare-participating radiologists with American Board of Radiology diplomates. Among linked diplomates, 4670 neuroradiologists were identified on the basis of 3 criteria: current or prior neuroradiology subspecialty certification or currently >50% clinical work effort in neuroradiology based on work relative value unit-weighted national Medicare claims ("majority-practice neuroradiologists"). Subspecialty certification status was studied in each group, using Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services data to identify additional physician characteristics. RESULTS:Of 3769 included radiologists ever subspecialty certified, 84.1% are currently subspecialty certified. Of 1777/3769 radiologists ever subspecialty-certified and with lifetime primary certificates (ie, nonmandated Maintenance of Certification), only 66.6% are currently subspecialty certified. Of 3341 included majority-practice neuroradiologists, 73.0% were ever subspecialty certified; of these, 89.1% are currently subspecialty certified. Of 3341 majority-practice neuroradiologists, the fraction currently subspecialty certified was higher for those in academic (81.3%) versus nonacademic (58.2%) practices, larger versus smaller practices (72.1% for those in ≥100 versus 36.1% for <10-member practices), US regions other than the West (64.1%-70.6% versus 56.5%), fewer years in practice (77.5% for 11-20 years versus 31.3% for >50 years), and time-limited (73.5%) versus lifetime (54.9%) primary certificates. CONCLUSIONS:More than one-quarter of majority-practice neuroradiologists never obtained neuroradiology subspecialty certification. Even when initially obtained, that certification is commonly not maintained, particularly by lifetime primary certificate diplomates and those in nonacademic and smaller practices. Further investigation is warranted to better understand neuroradiologists' decisions regarding attaining and maintaining subspecialty certification.

OBJECTIVE. Nonphysician providers (NPPs) increasingly perform imaging-guided procedures, but their roles interpreting imaging have received little attention. We characterize diagnostic imaging services rendered by NPPs (i.e., nurse practitioners and physician assistants) in the Medicare population. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Using 1994-2015 Medicare Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary Master Files, we identified all diagnostic imaging services, including those billed by NPPs, and categorized these by modality and body region. Using 2004-2015 Medicare Part B 5% Research Identifiable File Carrier Files, we separately assessed state-level variation in imaging services rendered by NPPs. Total and relative utilization rates were calculated annually. RESULTS. Between 1994 and 2015 nationally, diagnostic imaging services increased from 339,168 to 420,172 per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries (an increase of 24%). During this same period, diagnostic imaging services rendered by NPPs increased 14,711% (from 36 to 5332 per 100,000 beneficiaries) but still represented only 0.01% and 1.27% of all imaging in 1994 and 2015, respectively. Across all years, radiography and fluoroscopy constituted most of the NPP-billed imaging services and remained constant over time (e.g., 94% of all services billed in 1994 and 2015), representing only 0.01% and 2.1% of all Medicare radiography and fluoroscopy services. However, absolute annual service counts for NPP-billed radiography and fluoroscopy services increased from 10,899 to 1,665,929 services between 1994 and 2015. NPP-billed imaging was most common in South Dakota (7987 services per 100,000 beneficiaries) and Alaska (6842 services per 100,000 beneficiaries) and was least common in Hawaii (231 services per 100,000 beneficiaries) and Pennsylvania (478 services per 100,000 beneficiaries). CONCLUSION. Despite increasing roles of NPPs in health care across the United States, NPPs still rarely interpret diagnostic imaging studies. When they do, it is overwhelmingly radiography and fluoroscopy. Considerable state-to-state variation exists and may relate to local care patterns and scope-of-practice laws.

OBJECTIVE. Physicians across specialties have expressed concerns about Maintenance of Certification (MOC) programs of American Board of Medical Specialties member boards, calling for research about MOC acceptance, adoption, and value. The purpose of this study was to characterize diagnostic radiologists' participation in the American Board of Radiology (ABR) MOC program, the framework for its new Online Longitudinal Assessment program. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Practicing U.S. radiologists were identified from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Physician and Other Supplier Public Use File. Corresponding ABR diplomate certification information was obtained through the ABR public search engine. Focused on diagnostic radiologists (defined as those whose only ABR certificate is in diagnostic radiology), MOC participation rates were calculated across various physician characteristics for those whose participation was mandated by the ABR (time-limited certificates) and for those whose participation was not mandated (lifetime certificates). RESULTS. Among 20,354 included diagnostic radiologists, 11,479 (56.4%) participated in MOC. Participation rates were 99.6% (10,058/10,099) among those whose MOC was ABR mandated and 13.9% (1421/10,225) among those whose participation was not mandated (p < 0.001). The rates of nonmandated participation were higher (all p < 0.001) for academic than for non-academic radiologists (28.0% vs 11.3%), subspecialists than for generalists (17.0% vs 11.5%), and those in larger practice groups (< 10 members, 5.0%; 10-49 members, 12.6%; ≥ 50 members, 20.7%). State-level rates of nonmandated participation varied from 0.0% (South Dakota, Montana) to 32.6% (Virginia) and positively correlated with state population density (r = 0.315). CONCLUSION. Although diagnostic radiologists with time-limited certificates nearly universally participate in MOC, those with lifetime certificates (particularly general radiologists and those in smaller and nonacademic practices) participate infrequently. Low rates of nonmandated participation may reflect diplomate dissatisfaction or negative perceptions about MOC.

Purpose: The tremendous popularity of the new integrated interventional radiology (IR) and diagnostic radiology residency highlights the importance of medical student outreach to promote a diverse new generation of trainees. In order to promote women in IR, and attract female applicants directly from medical school, the Women in IR committee (WIR) of the Resident Fellow and Student Section (RFS) of the Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR) started accepting female and honorary male medical student members in March 2018. We aimed to assess the interests and goals of medical students joining WIR to better address their needs and to guide future recruitment. Materials: This retrospective study analyzed the WIR registration form responses during a 4-week recruitment period. Prior to medical student recruitment, WIR had 38 active female resident and fellow members. Recruitment banners were sent to the RFS medical students and posted on the RFS website and social media accounts.
Result(s): Among 43 students who registered, 7%, 28%, 37% and 28% were first, second, third and fourth year students, respectively. 19% were males. When asked to select any committee activities in which they were interested, the majority indicated research (93%), educational activities (86%), publishing articles online (60%), organizing events (58%), and leading new projects (53%). When asked their goals in joining WIR, female students wanted to promote WIR (69%), network (63%), build mentorship (31%), seek more opportunities (26%), address barriers for women (23%), and make an impact in IR (23%); male students wanted to support WIR (100%), address barriers (50%), and advance IR with diversity and inclusion (50%).
Conclusion(s): Medical students showed robust interests in joining WIR. Both female and male students expressed interests in promoting WIR and addressing barriers for the gender gap. Female students expressed interests in increasing networking, mentorship, and opportunities in IR. Male students emphasized the importance of diversity and inclusion. Recruiting medical students into SIR committees and providing networking, mentorship, and projects may attract both more female and male medical students into the field.
Copyright

OBJECTIVE. Given recent specialty attention to workforce diversity, we aimed to characterize potential gender differences in the practice patterns of interventional radiologists (IRs). MATERIALS AND METHODS. Using Medicare claims data, we identified IRs on the basis of the distribution of their billed clinical work effort and descriptively characterized practice patterns by gender. RESULTS. Women represented 8.2% (241/2936) of all IRs identified nationally. Female representation varied geographically (≤ 2% in nine states, ≥ 20% in three states) and by career stage (9.4% among early-career IRs and 6.4% among late-career IRs; 18.8% among early-career IRs in the Northeast). For both female IRs and male IRs, interventional case mixes were similar across service categories (e.g., venous and hemodialysis access, arterial and venous interventions, biopsies and drainages) and by procedural complexity (e.g., 5.7% vs 4.3% for low-complexity procedures and 59.5% vs 61.3% for high-complexity procedures). Average patient complexity scores were also similar for female (2.7 ± 12 [SD]) and male (2.8 ± 12) IRs. Female IRs spent slightly lower portions of their work effort rendering invasive services (66.5% vs 70.0%, respectively) and noninvasive diagnostic imaging (19.0% vs 22.2%) than male IRs but spent more time in evaluation and management clinical visits (14.5% vs 7.9%). Both female IRs and male IRs rendered a majority of their services to female patients (53.4% vs 53.1%). CONCLUSION. Although women remain underrepresented in interventional radiology, female IRs' interventional case composition, procedural complexity, and patient complexity are similar to those of their male colleagues. Female IRs' higher proportion of evaluation and management clinical visits supports the specialty's increased focus on longitudinal care so that interventional radiology will thrive alongside other clinical specialties.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To explore the current state of teleradiology practice, defined as the interpretation of imaging examinations at a different facility from where the examination was performed. METHODS:A national survey addressing radiologists' habits, attitudes, and perceptions regarding teleradiology was distributed by e-mail to a random sample of ACR members in early 2019. RESULTS:Among 731 of 936 respondents who indicated a non-teleradiologist primary work setting, 85.6% reported performing teleradiology within the past 10 years and 25.4% reported that teleradiology represents a majority of their annual imaging volumes; 84.4% performed teleradiology for internal examinations and 45.7% for external examinations; 46.2% performed teleradiology for rural areas and 37.2% for critical access hospitals; 91.3% performed teleradiology during weekday normal business hours and 44.5% to 79.6% over evening, overnight, and weekend hours. In all, 76.9% to 86.2% perceived value from teleradiology for geographic, after-hours, and multispecialty coverage, as well as reduced interpretation turnaround times. The most common challenges for teleradiology were electronic health record access (62.8%), quality assurance (53.8%), and technologist proximity (48.4%). The strategy most commonly considered useful for improving teleradiology was technical interpretation standards (33.3%). Radiologists in smaller practices were less likely to perform teleradiology or performed teleradiology for lower fractions of work, were less likely to experience coverage advantages of teleradiology, and reported larger implementation challenges, particularly relating to electronic health records and prior examination access. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Despite historic concerns, teleradiology is widespread throughout modern radiology practice, helping practices achieve geographic, after-hours, and multispecialty coverage; reducing turnaround times; and expanding underserved access. Nonetheless, quality assurance of offsite examinations remains necessary. IT integration solutions could help smaller practices achieve teleradiology's benefits.

Multiparametric (mp) prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is playing an increasingly prominent role in the diagnostic work-up of patients with suspected prostate cancer. Performing mpMRI before biopsy offers several advantages including biopsy avoidance under certain clinical circumstances and targeting biopsy of suspicious lesions to enable the correct diagnosis. The success of the technique is heavily dependent on high-quality image acquisition, interpretation, and report communication, all areas addressed by previous versions of the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) recommendations. Numerous studies have validated the approach, but the widespread adoption of PI-RADS version 2 has also highlighted inconsistencies and limitations, particularly relating to interobserver variability for evaluation of the transition zone. These limitations are addressed in the recently released version 2.1. In this article, we highlight the key changes proposed in PI-RADS v2.1 and explore the background reasoning and evidence for the recommendations.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to examine changing characteristics of utilization and potential disparities in US emergency department (ED) patients undergoing CT of the abdomen and pelvis (CTAP) for suspected urolithiasis. METHODS:A retrospective study was conducted among all patients from 2006 to 2015 with a primary diagnosis of suspected urolithiasis within the Nationwide Emergency Department Sample, the largest publicly available all-payer ED database in the United States. The annual numbers of ED visits for suspected urolithiasis and associated CTAP examinations per visit were determined. The compound annual growth rate for CTAP was calculated. Using multivariate logistic regression analyses, patient demographics and payer and hospital characteristics were evaluated as potential independent predictors of utilization. RESULTS:Nationwide, the number of ED visits per year for suspected urolithiasis increased from 1,057,119 in 2006 to 1,246,041 in 2014 (relative +17.9%), while the annual use of CTAP increased from 24.6% to 49.4% per visit (relative +100.8%; CAGR +8.0%). Multivariate analysis showed higher CTAP use associated with higher patient household income ZIP code quartile (odds ratio [OR] for wealthiest/poorest, 1.48), private payer (ORs, 1.21 vs Medicare and 1.22 vs Medicaid), Northeast geographic region (ORs, 5.07 vs Midwest, 4.16 vs West, and 1.77 vs South), hospital urban status (OR, 1.42), and nonteaching hospitals (OR, 1.20) (P < .05 for all). CONCLUSIONS:The relative use of CTAP in ED patients presenting with suspected urolithiasis doubled between 2006 and 2014 and showed marked geographic variation. Among ED patients with suspected urolithiasis, CTAP was more frequent in patients from higher household income ZIP codes, with private insurance, in the Northeast, and at urban and nonteaching hospitals.

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to assess the percentage and characteristics of radiologists who meet criteria for facility-based measurement in the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS). MATERIALS AND METHODS. The Provider Utilization and Payment Data: Physician and Other Supplier Public Use File was used to identify radiologists who bill 75% or more of their Medicare Part B claims in the facility setting. RESULTS. Among 31,217 included radiologists nationwide, 71.0% met the eligibility criteria for facility-based measurement as individuals in MIPS. The percentage of predicted eligibility was slightly higher for male than female radiologists (72.9% vs 64.5%). The percentage decreased slightly with increasing years in practice (from 78.8% for radiologists with < 10 years in practice to 67.3% for radiologists with ≥ 25 years in practice). The eligibility percentage was also higher for radiologists in rural as opposed to urban practices (81.6% vs 71.3%) and in academic as opposed to nonacademic practices (77.2% vs 70.3%). However, the percentages were similar across practices of varying sizes. There was also a greater degree of heterogeneity by state, ranging from 50.9% in Minnesota to 94.0% in West Virginia. By overall geographic region, the percentage of predicted eligibility was lowest in the Northeast (64.7%) and highest in the Midwest (78.3%). A higher percentage of generalists met the 75% facility-based threshold than did subspecialists (77.3% vs 65.4%). When stratified by subspecialty, however, facility-based eligibility was lowest for musculoskeletal radiologists (38.1%) and breast imagers (45.1%) and highest for cardiothoracic radiologists (85.1%). For other subspecialties, predicted eligibility ranged from 66.0% to 77.8%. CONCLUSION. Most radiologists will be eligible for facility-based reporting for MIPS in 2019, with some variation by demographic and specialty characteristics. The facility-based option provides a safety net for radiologists who face challenges accessing hospital data for reporting quality measures. In general, radiologists should not alter their current MIPS strategy but should instead consider facility-based measurement as a contingency plan that could result in a higher final score.