Diagnostic Radiology Residency Programs Research Articles

Utilization of a Virtual Information Session to Increase Engagement With Prospective Applicants in the Setting of COVID-19

PurposeThis study aimed to assess the efficacy of a virtual information session hosted by a diagnostic radiology residency program at addressing applicant concerns about the 2020-2021 interview cycle and highlighting key aspects of the residency program. MethodsParticipants were recruited to attend the virtual information session over a 2-week period via social media and communication with medical school radiology interest groups. Attendees were able to submit questions or topics of interest prior to the session. The virtual information session was hosted by trainees and faculty from a radiology residency. Data regarding the demographics of the attendees and the efficacy of the session were obtained through interactive live polling during the virtual session and a voluntary anonymous postsession survey. ResultsA total of 171 attendees participated in the virtual information session. Of the attendees, 42% learned about the session from Twitter and 72% were fourth-year medical students applying for residency. Among topics addressed during the session, attendees indicated that they were most interested in learning about “Application strategies during COVID-19” during an in-session poll. On the post-session survey, 96% of attendees reported being more knowledgeable about the residency program culture and the breadth of research and educational opportunities. ConclusionGiven the virtual nature of the 2020-2021 residency application cycle, utilization of web-based platforms for recruitment will be essential. Virtual information sessions can be effective at providing insight into aspects of a residency program that are typically gained during the in-person interview experience.

A 15-Year Analysis of International Medical Graduates Matching Into Diagnostic Radiology Residency Programs in the United States

To analyze the trends in international medical graduates (IMGs) matching into diagnostic radiology residency programs in the United States (US). The National Resident Match Program data was accessed for years 2005-2020 and diagnostic radiology residency-specific data was extracted for US MD, osteopathic (DO), and IMG applicants. IMGs were categorized into US-citizen IMGs and non-US citizen IMGs per the National Residency Match Program. Variables collected for each year included the number of positions, number of applicants in each group, positions filled/unfilled, and fill rate of each group. Additional data for some years included USMLE Step 1 score, United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 2 clinical knowledge (CK) score, number of research experiences, number of abstracts/publications, and additional degrees obtained. Trends were analyzed using simple linear regression model and p value <0.05 was considered significant. The number of diagnostic radiology residency programs increased from 203 (2006) to 212 (2020). The total number of diagnostic radiology residency positions increased from 1011 (2006) to 1113 (2020), with the peak of 1145 in 2014. The overall "match rate," that is, proportion of positions filled to positions available, increased from 96.4% (2006) to 97.3% (2020), with a brief decline to 86.7% in 2015. Among the filled positions, the proportion filled by US medical school graduates significantly declined from 89.7% (2006) to 69.2% (2020) (p < 0.001), and the proportion of positions filled by osteopathic seniors and graduates significantly increased from 2.2% (2006) to 15.1% (2020; p < 0.001). The proportion of US IMGs increased from 3.2% (2006) to 5.4% (2020), while the proportion of non-US IMGs increased from 4.4% (2006) to 9.4% (2020), with overall IMG match rate increased significantly from 7.6% to 14.9% (p = 0.009). The mean Step 1 scores of US IMGs and non-US IMGs were 238 and 237.3, and the mean Step 2 CK scores were 241.67 and 241, respectively. Cumulatively over the study period, a total of 736 US IMGs and 1051 non-US IMGs have matched into diagnostic radiology residency. There is an increasing proportion of IMGs, especially the non-US citizen IMGs, matching into US radiology residency programs in the last decade. Diagnostic radiology remains a competitive specialty evidenced by average USMLE scores higher than national average and research experiences of matched candidates.

National Survey to Assess Gender, Racial, and Ethnic Differences Among Radiology Residency Applicants Regarding Factors Impacting Program Selection

Radiology has one of the lowest female representation rates in medicine and recruiting female residents is a challenge for some residency programs. There is limited understanding of gender differences among residency applicants during program selection. The study objective is to investigate which program factors were considered most important by radiology residency applicants and to assess for differences by gender, race and ethnicity. An anonymous survey was distributed electronically to diagnostic and interventional radiology residency programs in the US and Canada via the Association of Program Coordinators in Radiology (APCR). Residents were asked to evaluate the importance of 30 factors during evaluation of residency programs using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not important, 5 = extremely important). 370 residents and 1 fellow completed the survey. Of the respondents, 269 were male (72.5%) and 101 were female (27.2%). The most important factors to respondents during program selection were program culture (4.42), geographic location (4.17), fellowship placement (4.14), and imaging and/or procedure volume (3.98). There was a significant difference between male and female respondents in the importance of program culture (p = 0.002), composition of current residents (p = 0.007), percentage of current female residents (p < 0.0001), program size (p = 0.047), call schedule (p = 0.025), percentage of female faculty (p < 0.0001), faculty ethnic and racial diversity (p < 0.0001), resident ethnic and racial diversity (p < 0.0001), which female respondents ranked more highly. Applicants consider many factors during residency program selection. Program culture, geographic location, fellowship placement and imaging and/or procedural volume were most important. There were significant differences by gender, race and ethnicity in importance of several factors.

USMLE Step 3 Scores Have Value in Predicting ABR Core Examination Outcome and Performance: A Multi-institutional Study

We analyzed multi-institutional data to determine if Step 3 performance tiers can identify radiology residents with increased risk of Core examination failure and submean performance. We collected Step 3 scores (USMLE Step 3 or COMLEX Level 3) and American Board of Radiology (ABR) Core examination outcomes and scores for anonymized residents from 13 different Diagnostic Radiology residency programs taking the ABR Core examination between 2013 and 2019. Step 3 scores were converted to percentiles based on Z-score, with Core outcome and performance analyzed for Step 3 groups based on 50th percentile and based on quintiles. Core outcome was scored as fail when conditionally passed or failed. Core performance was measured by the percent of residents with scores below the mean. Differences between Step 3 groups for Core outcome and Core performance were statistically evaluated. Data were available for 342 residents. The Core examination failure rate for 121 residents with Step 3 scores <50th percentile was 19.8% (fail relative risk = 2.26), significantly higher than the 2.7% failure rate for the 221 other residents. Of 42 residents with Step 3 scores in the lowest quintile, the Core failure rate increased to 31.0% (fail relative risk = 3.52). Core performance improved with higher Step 3 quintiles. Step 3 licensing scores have value in predicting radiology resident performance on the ABR Core examination, enabling residency programs to target higher risk residents for early assessment and intervention.

COVID-19 and the Radiology Match: A Residency Program's Survival Guide to the Virtual Interview Season

COVID-19 and the Radiology Match: A Residency Program's Survival Guide to the Virtual Interview Season

Diagnostic Radiology Residency Program Director Workforce in the United States: A Descriptive Analysis

To investigate and describe the demographics, academic background, and scholarly activity of Diagnostic Radiology (DR) residency program directors in the United States. A list of all DR residency programs accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) and corresponding program directors (PD) was obtained from ACGME website. Information about each PD was obtained from publicly available sources including program websites, Healthgrades and Doximity. Demographic and academic data including age, sex, educational background, subspecialty, tenure, interval between residency completion and appointment as PD, terms served, additional degrees, academic rank, prior leadership positions and metrics of scholarly activity were recorded. Nonparametric statistics including Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests were applied to compare differences between groups. Results are considered statistically significant at p < 0.05. A total of 197 PDs were included in the study of which 139 (70.6%) were male. Average age of PDs was 47.56 years (SD 8.29, median 45, range 35-77). There was no significant difference in median age of male vs female PDs (45 vs 44.5, p = 0.655). Majority of PDs attended American medical schools (181/197, 91.9%), and 16/197 attended international medical schools. Nine PDs received DO degrees (9/197, 4.6%). Academic rank was available for 137 PDs, of which 4 (2.9%) were instructors, 63 (46.0%) were assistant professors, 47 (34.3%) were associate professors and 23 (16.8%) were professors. Fellowship information was available for 183 PDs, of which the most common subspecialties were neuroradiology (24.5%), musculoskeletal radiology (15.8%), abdominal radiology (10.3%), and interventional radiology (9.8%). Female PDs had a significantly higher median publications (13.5 vs 6.0, p = 0.003), median citations (133 vs 37, p = 0.19) and median h-index compared to male PDs (6 ± 3, p = 0.005). Radiology PDs are mostly males who graduated from US allopathic medical schools. Female PDs had significantly higher scholarly metrics compared to male PDs. Twenty three percent PDs were appointed in the last 1 year.

The Relationship Between ACR Diagnostic Radiology In-Training Examination Scores and ABR Core Examination Outcome and Performance: A Multi-Institutional Study.

We analyzed multi-institutional data to understand the relationship of ACR Diagnostic Radiology In-Training Examination (DXIT) scores to ABR Core examination performance. We collected DXIT rank scores and ABR Core examination outcomes and scores for anonymized residents from 12 different diagnostic radiology residency programs taking the ABR Core examination between 2013 and 2019. DXIT scores were grouped into quintiles based on rank score for residency year 1 (R1), residency year 2 (R2), and residency year 3 (R3) residents. Core outcome was scored as fail when conditionally passed or failed. Core performance was grouped using SD from the mean and measured by the percent of residents with scores below the mean. Differences between DXIT score quintiles for Core outcome and Core performance were statistically evaluated. DXIT and Core outcome data were available for 446 residents. The Core examination failure rate for the lowest quintile R1, R2, and R3 DXIT scores was 20.3%, 34.2%, and 38.0%, respectively. Core performance improved with higher R3 DXIT quintiles. Only 2 of 229 residents with R3 DXIT score ≥ 50th percentile failed the Core examination, with both failing residents having R2 DXIT scores in the lowest quintile. DXIT scores are useful evaluation metrics to identify a subgroup of residents at significantly higher risk for Core examination failure and another subgroup of residents at significantly lower risk for Core examination failure, with increasing predictive power with advancing residency year. These scores enable identification of approximately one-half of R3 residents whose risk of Core examination failure is negligible.

The Relationship Between US Medical Licensing Examination Step Scores and ABR Core Examination Outcome and Performance: A Multi-institutional Study.

We analyzed multi-institutional data to understand the relationship of US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step scores to ABR Core examination performance to identify Step score tiers that stratify radiology residents into different Core performance groups. We collected USMLE Step scores and ABR Core examination outcomes and scores for anonymized residents from 13 different diagnostic radiology residency programs taking the ABR Core examination between 2013 and 2019. USMLE scores were grouped into noniles using z scores and then aggregated into three tiers based on similar Core examination pass-or-fail outcomes. Core performance was grouped using standard deviation from the mean and then measured by the percent of residents with scores below the mean. Differences between Step tiers for Core outcome and Core performance were statistically evaluated (P < .05 considered significant). Differences in Step 1 terciles Core failure rates (45.9%, 11.9%, and 3.0%, from lowest to highest Step tiers; n= 416) and below-mean Core performance (83.8%, 54.1%, and 21.1%, respectively; n= 402) were significant. Differences in Step 2 groups Core failure rates (30.0%, 10.6%, and 2.0%, from lowest to highest Step tiers; n= 387) and below-mean Core performance (80.0%, 43.7%, and 14.0%, respectively; n= 380) were significant. Step 2 results modified Core outcome and performance predictions for residents in Step 1 terciles of varying statistical significance. Tiered scoring of USMLE Step results has value in predicting radiology resident performance on the ABR Core examination; effective stratification of radiology resident applicants can be done without reporting numerical Step scores.

Creating a Competency-Based Medical Education Curriculum for Canadian Diagnostic Radiology Residency (Queen's Fundamental Innovations in Residency Education)-Part 1: Transition to Discipline and Foundation of Discipline Stages.

The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada (RCPSC) has mandated the transition of postgraduate medical training in Canada to a competency-based medical education (CBME) model divided into 4 stages of training. As part of the Queen's University Fundamental Innovations in Residency Education proposal, Queen's University in Canada is the first institution to transition all of its residency programs simultaneously to this model, including Diagnostic Radiology. The objective of this report is to describe the Queen's Diagnostic Radiology Residency Program's implementation of a CBME curriculum. At Queen's University, the novel curriculum was developed using the RCPSC's competency continuum and the CanMEDS framework to create radiology-specific entrustable professional activities (EPAs) and milestones. In addition, new committees and assessment strategies were established. As of July 2015, 3 cohorts of residents (n = 9) have been enrolled in this new curriculum. EPAs, milestones, and methods of evaluation for the Transition to Discipline and Foundations of Discipline stages, as well as the opportunities and challenges associated with the implementation of a competency-based curriculum in a Diagnostic Radiology Residency Program, are described. Challenges include the increased frequency of resident assessments, establishing stage-specific learner expectations, and the creation of volumetric guidelines for case reporting and procedures. Development of a novel CBME curriculum requires significant resources and dedicated administrative time within an academic Radiology department. This article highlights challenges and provides guidance for this process.

Competency-Based Medical Education in Radiology: A Survey of Medical Student Perceptions.

Implementing competency-based medical education in diagnostic radiology residencies will change the paradigm of learning and assessment for residents. The objective of this study is to evaluate medical student perceptions of competency-based medical education in diagnostic radiology programs and how this may affect their decision to pursue a career in diagnostic radiology. First-, second-, and third-year medical students at a Canadian university were invited to complete a 14-question survey containing a mix of multiple choice, yes/no, Likert scale, and open-ended questions. This aimed to collect information on students' understanding and perceptions of competency-based medical education and how the transition to competency-based medical education would factor into their decision to enter a career in diagnostic radiology. The survey was distributed to 300 medical students and received 63 responses (21%). Thirty-seven percent of students had an interest in pursuing diagnostic radiology that ranged from interested to committed and 46% reported an understanding of competency-based medical education and its learning approach. The implementation of competency-based medical education in diagnostic radiology programs was reported to be a positive factor by 70% of students and almost all reported that breaking down residency into measurable milestones and required case exposure was beneficial. This study demonstrates that medical students perceive competency-based medical education to be a beneficial change to diagnostic radiology residency programs. The changes accompanying the transition to competency-based medical education were favored by students and factored into their residency decision-making.

Implementing a Radiology Residency Quality Curriculum to Develop Physician Leaders and Increase Value for Patients.

Diagnostic and interventional radiology residency programs must educate trainees on quality and patient safety topics to meet board requirements and prepare residents to become effective physician leaders. A quality curriculum should encompass process improvement methodology as well as instruction about crucial patient safety subjects. The authors have developed a standardized and structured approach to fulfill this need using didactic and experiential learning. The educational format includes short lectures, peer-to-peer instruction, and self-study, with the value of presented information reinforced by physician leaders and process improvement specialists. Equally important is a structured experience in departmental quality improvement wherein trainees learn the collaborative nature of effective durable process change in areas of interest to them. This curriculum is implemented during the 3rd year of radiology residency to leverage residents' knowledge and experience with radiology workflows and proximity to the American Board of Radiology Core Exam. Feedback from educators and trainees as well as objective examination data support this approach. This article shares guidance and lessons learned from the authors' radiology residency educational efforts and offers a framework for successful implementation of a comprehensive quality curriculum at any residency training program. This curriculum serves the dual purpose of developing skilled future physician leaders and promoting value for patients. ©RSNA, 2020.

The Current State of Nuclear Medicine and Nuclear Radiology: Workforce Trends, Training Pathways, and Training Program Websites

Nuclear medicine (NM) is a multidisciplinary field. Its overlap with nuclear radiology (NR) creates unique training considerations, opportunities, and challenges. Various factors impact the workforce, training needs, and training pathways. This state of flux may be perplexing to prospective NM/NR trainees. To evaluate the state of NM/NR training by assessing the (1) workforce trends and job prospects for NM/NR trainees, (2) NM and NR training pathways, and (3) applicant-accessible online presence of training programs. Workforce trends were analyzed using data collected from the 2017 American College of Radiology Commission on Human Resources Workforce Survey. Information regarding the training pathways leading to board certification(s) for NM and NR physicians were obtained through the American Board of Nuclear Medicine, the American Board of Radiology (ABR), and the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Medical Imaging. Each Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited NM residency or NR fellowship training program's website was reviewed for 20 content items to assess its comprehensiveness for those seeking information regarding eligibility, applications, training curriculum, and program characteristics. Number of hires for NM/NR physicians has exceeded the projected number of hires from 2014 to 2017. In the last decade, there has been a greater than 25% decrease in the combined number of traditional NM residencies and NR fellowships (79-58 programs) and a greater than 50% decrease in the combined number of NM and NR trainees (173-82 trainees). In 2017, the ABR redesigned its 16-month pathway leading to specialty certification in diagnostic radiology and subspecialty certification in NR. As of March 24, 2019, there are 36 diagnostic radiology or IR residency programs with 64 trainees participating in this redesigned NR pathway. Of the 93.1% (54/58) of traditional Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited NM and NR training programs having websites in the 2017-2018 academic year, the mean number of online criteria met per program was 7.74 ± 3.2 of 20 (38.7%). Recruitment into the traditional NM/NR training pathways has been steadily declining, but there has been a renewed interest with the redesigned ABR 16-month pathway. There is a paucity of online information available to prospective NM/NR applicants. In this rapidly evolving and unique field, it is important to streamline NM/NR training and bolster the information accessible to potential NM/NR applicants as they weigh career options.

Recruiting Future Radiologists: How Can We Do Better?

Medical students starting their education today will become the radiologists of tomorrow. While the numbers of medical students applying for US radiology residency programs through the Match have remained fairly stable over the past several years ( 1 Association of American Medical Colleges. ERAS applicants – diagnostic radiology 2018. Available from: https://www.aamc.org/download/358842/data/radiology-diagnostic.pdf. Accessed February, 2019. Google Scholar ), there is reason to examine our current recruitment practices. Our field faces a number of challenges in this arena: the division of diagnostic and interventional radiology (IR) residency programs, the decreasing time available for teaching and mentoring medical students, the impact of medical school debt on choice of postgraduate training, and the development of new technology, including artificial intelligence, that may quickly change the face of our profession. We must address these issues for medical students in order to continue attracting them to our field.

Gender and Racial Bias in Radiology Residency Letters of Recommendation

ObjectivePerceptions of agency and communality vary by race and gender, which may be contributing to the persistent gender and racial inequality in radiology. The objective of this study was to determine if there are differences in the use of agentic and communal language in letters of recommendation for radiology residency programs based on the demographics of the applicant and letter writer. MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed letters of recommendation for 736 diagnostic radiology residency applicants to Duke University from the 2015 to 2016 interview season. We then used computerized text analysis software to calculate the frequency of agentic and communal terms and multilevel negative binominal regression to compare differences in count by applicant and letter writer demographics. ResultsWe analyzed 2,624 letters of recommendation, comprising 976,489 words. The majority of applicants were male (75%, 549 of 736) and white or Asian (77%, 565 of 736). Letter writers, who were mostly male (75%, 1,979 of 2,624) and of senior rank (50%, 1,313 of 2,624), described female applicants as more agentic than men (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 1.08, P < .05) and described blacks and Latinx applicants as less agentic than whites and Asians (IRR = 0.932, P < .05). Secondary analysis showed that female letters writers described applicants as more agentic (IRR = 1.09, P < .05) and more communal (IRR = 1.12, P < .01) than did male writers, and senior rank faculty used agentic (IRR = 0.95, P < .05) and communal (IRR = 0.88, P < .01) language less often than did junior faculty. ConclusionThe extent to which agentic and communal language is used in letters of recommendation for diagnostic radiology residency programs differs by applicant and letter writer demographics.

Design, Implementation, and Evaluation of a Diversity Program for Radiology

Rationale and ObjectivesDiagnostic radiology training programs are less diverse than graduating US medical school classes and the patient populations they serve. Inclusion of physicians who are underrepresented minorities in medicine (URMM) can strengthen the profession and help to meet the needs of an increasingly diverse population. Our Department of Radiology developed and implemented a plan to increase the number of URMMs in our residency applicant pool and residency training program. Materials and MethodsWe designed a recruitment strategy to diversify the radiology residency applicant pool. This included website development, advertising, early exposure opportunities, travel to predominantly minority institutions and national meetings, and mentoring URMM medical students. We implemented parallel activities to increase the number of URMMs in our residency program. These included holistic screening tools for residency application review, a diverse residency recruitment committee, a welcome environment for visiting candidates, and “Second Look Weekend” visits for talented candidates. Primary outcomes measured include change in percentages of URMM applicants in our applicant pool and URMM residents in our residency program. ResultsThe percentage of URMM radiology residency applicants increased from 7.5% (42 of 556) of the total applicant pool in the 2012 to 2013 recruitment year to 12.6% (98 of 777) in the 2017 to 2018 recruitment year (P = .001). URMM radiology residency representation increased from 0% (0 of 32) in the 2013 to 2014 academic year to 20% (6 of 30) in the 2018 to 2019 academic year (P = .01). ConclusionAn intentional, strategic diversity program can diversify an institution’s residency applicant pool and increase representation of URMMs in a diagnostic radiology residency program.

Running a Radiology Residency Program: Strategies for Success.

Running a successful radiology residency program requires departments to navigate the evolving educational landscape at the departmental, institutional, and national levels. To attract the best applicants, departments must invest time and money to support the leadership of the program and its faculty to provide innovative educational opportunities in a positive learning environment while simultaneously complying with all of the requirements of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. The key administrative requirements of a successful radiology residency program are described and can be grouped into (a) essential administrative components, (b) the clinical learning environment review and self-study process, and (c) resident recruitment. Ten specific strategies for running a successful residency program are also presented. The goal is for this article to serve as a guide for not only existing diagnostic and interventional radiology residency programs but also newly formed programs that are in the process of seeking accreditation. ©RSNA, 2018.

Radiology’s Best Kept Secret: A Profession for Women Where Opportunities Abound

I fervently believe there is no better time for women to enter radiology than now. With women accounting for 27% of radiology trainees and 15% of current radiologists, there is no time like the present to change the ongoing narrative [ 1 Kane L. Medscape physician compensation report 2018. Available at: https://www.medscape.com/slideshow/2018-compensation-overview-6009667?src=soc_tw_share#16. Accessed April 25, 2018. Google Scholar , 2 Kaplan D. Why aren’t there more female radiologists? Diagnostic Imaging. Available at: http://www.diagnosticimaging.com/practice-management/why-arent-there-more-female-radiologists. Accessed April 20, 2018. Google Scholar ]. Perhaps I am biased, considering I am a newly minted radiologist whose outlook regarding the profession is one of great optimism and hope. The 2018 match results demonstrated a 100% match in all United States Diagnostic Radiology Residency Programs [ 3 Casey B. New data from Match 2018 underscore radiology's rebound. Aunt Minnie. Available at: https://www.auntminnie.com/index.aspx?sec=sup&sub=imc&pag=dis&ItemID=120257. Accessed April 20, 2018. Google Scholar ]. Moreover, in 2016, the AMA announced that radiology was in the top 10 of chosen specialties for women, rounding out the ninth spot [ 4 AMA. Women in medicine by the numbers. Available at: https://www.ama-assn.org/about/women-medicine. Accessed April 20, 2018. Google Scholar ]. Additionally, the number of women in medicine, including trainees, has increased 43% over a decade [ 4 AMA. Women in medicine by the numbers. Available at: https://www.ama-assn.org/about/women-medicine. Accessed April 20, 2018. Google Scholar ], and in 2017, we had more women (50.7%) than men (49.8%) entering US medical schools, a first in the history of medicine [ 5 Association of American Medical Colleges. Matriculating student questionnaire. Available at: https://www.aamc.org/download/485324/data/msq2017report.pdf. Accessed April 20, 2018. Google Scholar ]; these positive trends will hopefully permeate into radiology. However, although I do acknowledge the incredible sacrifice, grit, and determination that were required of past generations of women radiologists to achieve gender parity and strive for an equitable, collaborative, and wonderful workplace and specialty for all, I think we need to transform the way we market the specialty to female medical students who may be considering radiology. The foundation of greatness of which our specialty is comprised has always been there. Our profession plays an integral role in the care of a patient. We are engaged on many levels, from patient-centered care, education, research, advocacy, economics, to informatics. Now it is up to us to effectively execute a strategy that translates to more women entering the specialty. Invariably, this is already happening with the advent of social media. In fact, incredible engagement is occurring between radiologists, both female and male, and female medical students on social media platforms, including Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram. Out of this innovative method of engagement, mentoring relationships have been formulated and the barriers and so-called red tape accessibility have been eliminated. In fact, I, myself, am now mentoring female medical students across the country because of a mere connection on social media. Its power is truly transformative and can assist in debunking stereotypes that imply that radiologists are introverted types who stay confined to dark rooms and have no engagement with others.

Evaluating Factors and Resources Affecting Ranking of Diagnostic Radiology Residency Programs by Medical Students in 2016–2017

Recent changes in radiology curriculum and access to residency program information, including the introduction of various online resources and the Interventional Radiology integrated pathway, may influence the rank list order of medical student applicants. The purpose of this study is to assess factors that affect the rank lists of medical students applying to our radiology residency program in the 2016-2017 academic year. After IRB approval, an anonymous online 19 question survey was emailed to 622 applicants to our diagnostic radiology and/or interventional radiology integrated pathway. Applicants ranked 35 unique factors that may influence their residency rank list order from 1 (not important at all) to 5 (very important), listed their top five 'very important' factors, and ranked various sources of information used to learn about residency programs. General applicant demographic questions were also included. Response rate was 18.8% (117/622). The 5 most important factors affecting applicant ranking of programs are perceived happiness of the residents and faculty (4.69), fellowship and job placement of recent graduates (4.34), interactions with programs' current residents (4.33), stability of the department and program (4.29), and geographic location of the program (4.27). The top 5 resources for learning about residency programs were interactions with current residents at the program (4.47), program director (3.87), and interviewing faculty (3.87). Individual program websites were ranked more highly than internet message boards and forums as an information source. Medical students consider a large number of factors and resources in determining their rank lists, with factors encountered during the interview day playing a significant role in shaping the applicants' view of a residency program.

Implementation of an Innovative Tablet-based Curriculum for Radiology Resident Education

The aim of this study was to prospectively examine the impact of a tablet-based curriculum on the radiology resident educational experience. A comprehensive tablet-based curriculum was developed by creating subspecialty modules with appropriate content level for each required rotation at our diagnostic radiology residency program. Daily assignments included key learning points, readings, and reference presentation slides, covering all objectives published by the ABR Core Exam Study Guide. Residents were provided with iPad devices preconfigured with the curriculum and online access to most major radiology textbooks available in our institutional digital library. Assessment surveys were administered at baseline and 12 months following curriculum implementation. Twenty-two residents completed both surveys. In comparing the pre versus postsurvey results, 32% versus 73% residents agreed or strongly agreed that study resources were well-organized, 41% versus 91% agreed or strongly agreed that study resources were easily accessible, 27% versus 77% agreed or strongly agreed that the modules encouraged active learning, 18% versus 82% agreed or strongly agreed that resources motivate them to study daily, 36% versus 82% agreed or strongly agreed that the resources adequately prepared the resident for the radiology board exam, and 36% versus 82% agreed or strongly agreed that they were satisfied with the resources provided by the residency program (p < 0.05). Our study demonstrated the positive impact of implementing a complete tablet-based curriculum on radiology resident motivation, satisfaction, and engagement. Use of mobile tablet devices has the potential to dramatically transform content delivery in residency education.

Diagnostic Radiology Resident Recruitment Part II: Advice to Applicants From Vice Chairs for Education

Applicants to diagnostic radiology residencies often obtain advice regarding the process, typically from local individuals. Materials available on the Internet contribute to this process as well. We are a group of current and former Diagnostic Radiology Residency Program Directors and current Vice Chairs for Education who commonly advise medical students, including regarding radiology as a career. This work is meant to provide a "plain talk" resource for those considering a career in radiology via a radiology residency, written from the point of view of an advisor with lots of experience.