Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the effect of English proficiency on abdominal MRI imaging quality. METHODS:Three equal-sized cohorts of patients undergoing 3T abdominal MRI were identified based on English proficiency as documented in the EMR: Primary language of English; English as a second language (ESL)/no translator needed; or ESL, translator needed (42 patients per cohort for total study size of 126 patients). Three radiologists independently used a 1-5 Likert scale to assess respiratory motion and image quality on turbo spin-echo T2WI and post-contrast T1WI. Groups were compared using Kruskal-Wallis tests. RESULTS:For T2WI respiratory motion, all three readers scored the Translator group significantly worse than the English and ESL/no-Translator groups (mean scores across readers of 2.98 vs. 3.58 and 3.51; p values < 0.001-0.008). For T2WI overall image quality, all three readers also scored the Translator group significantly worse than the English and ESL/no-Translator groups (2.77 vs. 3.28 and 3.31; p values 0.002-0.005). For T1WI respiratory motion, mean scores were not significantly different between groups (English: 4.14, ESL/no-Translator: 4.02, Translator: 3.94; p values 0.398-0.597). For T1WI overall image quality, mean scores also were not significantly different (4.09, 3.99, and 3.95, respectively; p values 0.369-0.831). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Abdominal MR examinations show significantly worse T2WI respiratory motion and overall image quality when requiring a translator, even compared with non-translator exams in non-English primary language patients. Strategies are warranted to improve coordination among MR technologists, translators, and non-English speaking patients undergoing abdominal MR, to ensure robust image quality in this vulnerable patient population.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:To assess the prevalence and associated factors of burnout among U.S. academic radiologists. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:An online survey was sent to the radiologists who were full members of the Association of University Radiologists in December 2018. Burnout was measured using the abbreviated Maslach Burnout Inventory Human Services Survey. Survey respondents were also requested to complete questions on demographics, potential professional stressors, sense of calling, and career satisfaction. Associations between survey participants' characteristics and burnout were tested using logistic regression model. RESULTS:The survey response rate was 27% (228/831). Twenty-nine percent met all three criteria for high burnout, including high emotional exhaustion, high depersonalization, and low personal accomplishment. Seventy-nine percent had one or more symptoms of burnout. Numerous factors including work overload, inability to balance personal and professional life, lack of autonomy, lack of appreciation from patients and other medical staff were significantly associated (p < 0.05) with high burnout. Older age (OR, 0.95; 95%CI 0.92-0.98; p < 0.05), higher number of years of experience practicing as radiologists (OR, 0.95; 95%CI 0.92-0.98; p < 0.05), and holding academic rank of professor (OR, 0.25; 95%CI 0.11-0.56; p < 0.05) were factors associated with lower odds of experiencing burnout. Radiologists with high burnout were more likely to be dissatisfied with their career (OR, 2.28; 95%CI 1.70-3.07; p < 0.0001) and less likely to identify medicine as a calling. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Multiple factors contribute to high burnout in academic radiologists. Familiarity with these factors may help academic radiology departments to develop strategies to promote health and wellness of their faculty.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to assess recent trends in the generalist versus subspecialist composition of the national radiologist workforce. METHODS:Practicing radiologists were identified using 2012 to 2017 CMS Physician and Other Supplier Public Use Files. Work relative value units associated with radiologists' billed claims were mapped to subspecialties using the Neiman Imaging Types of Service to classify radiologists as subspecialists when exceeding a 50% work effort in a given subspecialty and as generalists otherwise. Additional practice characteristics were obtained from CMS Physician Compare. Chi-square statistics were computed. RESULTS:The percentage of radiologists practicing as subspecialists increased from 37.1% in 2012 and 2013 to 38.8% in 2014, 41.0% in 2015, 43.9% in 2016, and 44.6% in 2017. By subspecialty, 2012 to 2017 workforce changes were as follows: breast, +3.7%; abdominal, +2.4%; neuroradiology, +1.8%; musculoskeletal, +0.8%; cardiothoracic, +0.2%; nuclear, -0.2%; and interventional, -1.2%. Increased subspecialization overall was consistently observed (P < .05) across cohorts defined by gender, years in practice, practice size, and academic status. The degree of increasing subspecialization was greatest for female (+12.1%) and earlier career (+10.2% for those in practice <10 years) radiologists and those in larger groups (+7.2% for ≥100 members). Subspecialization increased in 45 states, and state-level increased subspecialization correlated weakly with population density (r = +0.248). CONCLUSIONS:In recent years, the national radiologist workforce has become increasingly subspecialized, particularly related to shifts toward breast imaging, abdominal imaging, and neuroradiology. Although growing subspecialization may advance more sophisticated imaging care, a diminishing supply of generalists could affect patient access and potentially separate radiologists across workforce sectors.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Occupational "horizontal segregation," defined as disparity in the distribution of responsibilities between genders, could discourage women from seeking careers in radiology, as well as impact women within radiology in terms of compensation, promotion, and career advancement. We aimed to explore the existence of horizontal workplace segregation in radiology, as potentially manifested as intergender differences in the distribution of clinical work effort among imaging modalities for radiologists. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:Medicare-participating general radiologists, neuroradiologists, abdominal, cardiothoracic, and musculoskeletal radiologists were identified from the 2016 Medicare Physician and Other Supplier Public Use File. Work effort in radiography, ultrasound, CT, and MRI was stratified by gender. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed. RESULTS:22,445 radiologists were included (19.0% female; 19.6% in academic practices). At univariable analysis, female (vs. male) generalists had lower work effort in MRI (10.2% vs. 13.2%) (p < 0.001); abdominal radiologists had higher work effort in ultrasound (27.1% vs. 21.9%), with lower work effort in CT (53.7%. vs. 56.0%) and MRI (8.1%. vs. 9.4%) (p < 0.001); and musculoskeletal radiologists had higher work effort in radiography (41.6% vs. 34.8%) and less in MRI (44.8% vs. 49.6%) (p = 0.007). In multivariable analyses, female gender was independently associated with lower work effort in advanced imaging (CT and MRI) for generalists (coefficient, -0.020; p < 0.001), abdominal radiologists (coefficient, -0.042; p < 0.001), and neuroradiologists (coefficient -0.010; p = 0.035). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Horizontal occupational segregation exists in radiology with female radiologists devoting lower work effort to advanced imaging modalities. Further investigation is warranted to better understand the sources and downstream implications of such variation.