Radiologist Satisfaction Research Articles

Berufszufriedenheit von Radiologen in Deutschland – aktueller Stand

The aim of this study was to identify and evaluate the work-related satisfaction of radiologists and its influencing factors in Germany. For this purpose an invitational letter for an online opinion survey was sent to all member physicians of the Deutsche Roentgengesellschaft in 2008. 1200 questionnaires were completed (response rate 21 %) and evaluated statistically. 81.7 % of radiologists declared themselves as being "very" or "rather satisfied". The level of satisfaction was largely independent of age, gender, status, salary or family status. It increased over the last 5 years for 37.5 % of participants and decreased for 24.8 %. Nevertheless, 72 % of respondents indicated that they would not choose to specialize in radiology again. The main reason given was the workload. 65.6 % deemed it to be "considerably" or "rather too high". Concomitantly, more than 70 % of respondents indicated that the workload had increased "a lot" or "rather". Further reasons for not wanting to select the radiological profession again were "unfavorable working hours" and "unsatisfactory career perspectives". The job satisfaction of radiologists in Germany is generally very high in spite of the perception of an extensive and frequently increasing workload. The high workload was the dominant factor against a renewed selection of the field of radiology. These data have to be interpreted in light of the current lack of residents and trained radiologists in Germany to counteract the trend toward emigration.

Satisfaction of Radiologists in the United States: A Comparison between 2003 and 1995

Satisfaction of Radiologists in the United States: A Comparison between 2003 and 1995

Satisfaction of Radiologists in the United States: A Comparison between 2003 and 1995

To prospectively ascertain what characteristics of radiologists, their practices, and their work environment affect professional satisfaction and to describe recent changes in satisfaction. Survey respondents were guaranteed confidentiality. Those who consented to participate were informed of the nature of the study. The authors analyzed nonindividually identified data from the American College of Radiology 2003 Survey of Radiologists, a nationally representative, confidential, stratified random-sample mail survey of radiologists in the United States, which had a 63% response rate, with a total of 1924 responses. Data were weighted to be representative of all U.S. radiologists and were analyzed by using univariate and multivariate analyses. The five answer options to questions regarding level of satisfaction corresponded to scores of +2, +1, 0, -1, and -2. Results were compared with those of a similar 1995 survey. Although 93% of radiologists enjoyed radiology very much or somewhat, the mean satisfaction score for posttraining professionally active radiologists decreased from 1.62 in 1995 to 1.47 in 2003. Thirty-two percent of radiologists reported enjoying radiology more than 5 years ago; 41% said they enjoyed it less. Excessive workload reduced current satisfaction and satisfaction relative to 5 years ago. Working in the Midwest enhanced current satisfaction and satisfaction relative to 5 years ago. Practice type and practice ownership had more varied effects on professional satisfaction; subspecialty type had relatively little effect. In 2003, medicolegal climate, workload, and reimbursement and/or financial pressures were the three most common reasons for decreased satisfaction. In 1995, interference from managed care; government regulations, control, and red tape; and increased administrative burden were the three most common reasons. Lifestyle and/or work hours, and income were the most common causes of increased satisfaction in 2003, but these were also often mentioned as causes of decreased satisfaction. Radiologists have higher levels of professional satisfaction than do other physicians; however, as with physicians overall, their satisfaction has decreased over time.

From Traditional Reading Rooms to a Soft Copy Environment: Radiologist Satisfaction Survey

Academic radiologists are experiencing increased clinical workloads. New technology such as picture archiving and communication systems (PACS) are often justified on the premise of increased efficiency. The authors believe that efficiency can be influenced by the image interpretation environment, and thus they set out to establish baseline satisfaction levels with this environment. The authors surveyed 90 Indiana University (IU) faculty radiologists, fellows, and residents. Their survey was implemented with a questionnaire sent via e-mail. Questions focused on satisfaction with the current soft-copy reading environments and preferences regarding improvements. Of the 90 radiologists surveyed, 55 (61%) responded. Several key findings emerged: (1) Overall satisfaction with the soft-copy environment is low, with nearly half (46%) of respondents rating themselves as "very dissatisfied" or "dissatisfied." (2) Faculty are least satisfied regarding work space ergonomics, room layout, and amount of work space. Appropriate lighting also emerged as an area with low satisfaction and high importance. (3) Ninety-eight percent of respondents indicated that an "ideal" soft-copy environment would have a positive effect on their efficiency. The dissatisfaction with the current soft-copy interpretation environments used by the IU radiologists indicates that this is an area that requires attention. Furthermore, there may be a direct relationship between radiologist efficiency and satisfaction with the image interpretation environment. Attention should be focused on this environment during a soft-copy technology implementation to ensure that planned efficiency gains are realized.

High-volume teleradiology service: focus on radiologist satisfaction.

In 1998 we surveyed our radiologists on teleradiology satisfaction. Results were generally positive. In 2002 we experienced a sevenfold case increase in teleradiology volume. The present study surveyed the radiologists again. The hypothesis was that, with increased case volume and radiologist experience with the system, ratings would increase. Image quality was excellent/good, although plain film and ultra sound (US) had more fair/poor ratings. Monitors, navigation, image processing, and Web-based reporting were rated as excellent/good. The voice-recognition system was rated poorly. Diagnostic confidence was about the same as for film. Exceptions were magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) US, and plain film. Up to 10% of cases are unreadable because of poor image quality, not enough images, or inadequate patient history. Overall, the radiologists are satisfied, although some improvements can be made.