Radiology Resident Education Research Articles

Learning Portfolios in Radiology Residency Education: How Do I Get Started?

As medical education and continuous professional development shift toward an outcomes-based model, there is increasing focus on the documentation of physician self-assessment and a commitment to lifelong learning. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education is helping prepare trainees for these changes by increasing the focus of graduate medical education on outcomes through the development of the 6 competencies. As part of this process, the learning portfolio is a new component of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education radiology residency program requirements. The purpose of this article is to familiarize the reader with the role of portfolios in medical education and to discuss strategies for the implementation of learning portfolios in a residency education program.

TU-E-M100J-01: Diagnostic Radiology Resident Medical Physics Education Update

Medical physics education for diagnostic radiology residents is undergoing major challenges, and a number of significant changes are being considered. In January of 2006, a Forum on Physics Education was held to examine medical physics education of diagnostic radiology residents, radiation oncology residents and medical physics residents. At that time, a new draft syllabus for diagnostic radiology resident medical physics education was presented. A followup Physics Education Conference was held in February of 2007 at which time a more fully developed physics syllabus was presented for review and comment. Since the meeting, the syllabus has undergone further revisions and is now nearing publication. Meanwhile the American Board of Radiology has been evaluating a number of different possible scenarios for improving the evaluation of medical physics education. The Radiology Review Committee of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education has recently passed sweeping new rules relating to resident education with an effective date of July of 2008. These rules include a number of provisions relating to medical physics education. This symposium is designed to inform physicists about these potential changes in resident education and will include four speakers, each of which will address one of the four educational objectives. Educational Objectives: 1. Review the findings of the Physics Education Conference held in Dallas in February, 2007. 2. Discuss the new AAPM syllabus for diagnostic radiology residents. 3. Comprehend the different examination pathways being considered by the American Board of Radiology for residents. 4. Understand the new ACGME requirements and how they will impact medical physics resident education.

Funding for Graduate Medical Education

The education of radiology residents and fellows is a vitally important but costly process. This paper reviews the most common methods of funding graduate medical education. The majority of graduate medical education in the United States is funded by Medicare, but there are caps on the number of trainees allowed, and the government is cutting payments. Academic medicine, particularly academic radiology, is at a point of crisis today if new methods to provide additional support are not found.

Challenges to Radiology Resident Education in the New Era

Over the past decade, there have been many developments that have changed the practice of radiology and the education of radiology residents. These include workforce issues, the institution of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education duty-hours restrictions, the increased use of night float systems, and the implementation of picture archiving and communication systems as well as voice recognition. This article reviews the impact on resident education, summarizes potential problems introduced by these changes, and examines proposed solutions.

The Impact of Professional Turf Battles on Radiology Resident Education: Perspectives From the Radiology Class of 2005

To assess residents' exposure to professional turf battles, via a survey of the radiology residency class of 2005, and to assess perceptions about the causes, solutions, and impact of turf battles on resident education. An electronic survey composed by the ACR Resident and Fellow Section was completed by 168 senior residents (a 18.9% response rate) enrolled in allopathic radiology residency programs from across the United States. The majority of respondents (153 of 168, 91.1%) perceive a loss of professional turf from nonradiologists. Areas most often perceived as being affected by lost professional turf were interventional radiology (136/168, 81.0%), cardiothoracic imaging (106 of 168, 63.1%), and ultrasound (88 of 168, 52.4%). The sense of lost professional turf was most often attributed to inadequate residency training in the affected subspecialities (87 of 168, 51.8%). The most commonly cited motivation for ongoing turf battles was reimbursement for diagnostic imaging and image-guided procedures as a motivator for nonradiologists. The majority of residents feel that the most effective ways to counter professional turf battles include the promotion of national physician-training standards for diagnostic imaging and image-guided therapies, the mandatory accreditation of all imaging facilities, and the development of performance standards that providers of imaging services must meet to qualify for reimbursement. The majority of resident respondents feel that professional turf battles have had a significant impact on their education. Methods recommended to counter professional turf battles mirror recent proposals by the ACR to support mandatory national quality, safety, and training standards for providers of diagnostic imaging.

Impact of PACS and Voice-Recognition Reporting on the Education of Radiology Residents

The introduction of picture archiving and communication system (PACS) has decreased the time needed to interpret radiology examinations resulting in an increased workflow. Because of concerns that the increase in exam throughput and the use of voice recognition may have a negative impact upon radiology resident education, a survey was conducted to assess the impact of PACS and voice recognition. Residents at four diagnostic radiology training programs were surveyed. Survey topics included resident demographics, didactic and technical issues, and areas for improvement. One hundred thirty-four residents were polled with 42 respondents (42/134, 31.3%). The majority have been using PACS for more than 1 year (29/41, 70.7%) to interpret 75-100% of cases (33/39, 84.6%). A majority believed PACS is a superior teaching tool to printed film (28/38, 73.7%). However, only a minority (9/40, 22.5%) indicated that PACS was always used to contain teaching files and to conduct departmental conferences (5/40, 12.5%). The majority of respondents believed PACS have decreased the time needed to interpret diagnostic examinations (33/41, 80.5%). A majority (80.6%, 25/31) indicated that voice recognition takes more time than the traditional dictation and transcription process, where 51.3% (20/39, 51.3%) felt that voice recognition works well less than 50% of the time. Residents believe that PACS has positively affected their learning experience but indicate that it can be better utilized for resident education. Residents believe that voice recognition is less reliable and more time consuming than the traditional dictation system.

Use of personal digital assistants in diagnostic radiology resident education 1

Personal digital assistants (PDAs) are gaining widespread use in the medical community. We introduced a PDA-based mobile system that provides departmental and educational information with a seamless connection to the intranet. The objective of this study is to determine the impact a PDA has on educational resources (learning or data reference) brought to work and used at home by a radiology resident based on user surveys. Survey was performed on 32 radiology residents in our department before and 6 months after the release of the PDA-based system. We assessed the changes in (1) sources of learning at home and at work, and in (2) data reference. The second survey also evaluated the usefulness of each component of the system. After the release of the PDA-based mobile system, the use of "digital books and references" as data references and educational resources that were brought to work every day significantly increased (P = .016, P < .0001, respectively). "Traditional books and references" remained the "most useful source in learning radiology"; however, "digital books and references" increased as the residents' first choice from 0% to 16% within 6 months of introducing the package (P = .125). The introduction of a PDA-based system consisting of educational and departmental information had a statistically significant impact in increasing the use of digitized information in radiology resident education.

Changing radiology resident education to meet today’s and tomorrow’s needs

Radiology education has evolved significantly in the past several decades, but there is considerable room for improvement. While some improvements depend on the availability of new technology, others are low tech, requiring merely that we be aware of and apply findings in the education literature. We teachers of radiology could benefit from recent studies investigating the processes underlying adult learning to improve the methods we use to train residents and fellows, and to improve the way we teach our colleagues and even ourselves. In this review, adult learning and the expert learner are briefly discussed, as are the important elements of effective learning tools. The strengths and weaknesses of radiology education as it is commonly practiced today are explored. Specific suggestions for improving education in radiology using both low tech and high tech methods are then discussed.

A survey evaluating the beliefs of radiology residency program directors regarding incorporation of numeric standards into accreditation standards 1

Rationale and objectives Numeric standards do not exist for the evaluation and comparison of radiology resident education. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education has recently proposed the evaluation and assessment of residents by using numeric values for films read in various radiology modalities. The purpose of this study was to evaluate radiology residency program directors’ perceived need for numeric standards for radiology residency programs. Materials and methods Program directors were surveyed via a three-part questionnaire. Initial contact was made by e-mail, with follow-up by telephone if necessary. The survey questions were: (1) Do you feel that a need exists for a set of numerical standards for the number of films read by radiology residents in each of the various subspecialties? (2) Specify the needs that you see. (3) What are the barriers and disadvantages to acquiring such data? Results Survey responses were received from 44 of 192 radiology residency programs (23% response rate). Overall, 34 (77%) of 44 program directors were against implementation of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education proposal, whereas 8 (18%) of 44 program directors were in favor of the proposal and 2 (5%) of 44 were undecided. A variety of reasons, both for and against the proposal, were provided by program directors. Conclusion Among the program directors responding to the survey, there was strong opposition to implementation of mandatory standards for specific numbers of radiologic examinations by residents as the basis for program accreditation.

Impact of PACS on the Education of Radiology Residents: The Residents' Perspective

Rationale and Objectives Because digital imaging and the picture archiving and communication system (PACS) are replacing radiographic film, the effect of PACS on residents' perceptions and their educational experience was investigated. Materials and Methods Residents taking part in large diagnostic radiology training programs at two hospitals were surveyed. Approximately 75% of radiographic studies were reviewed with the use of PACS at both hospitals. Survey topics included technical and didactic issues based on direct and indirect comparison with analog (conventional film) images. Results Fifty residents were polled (20 respondents). The majority has been using PACS for more than 1 year (14 of 20, 70%) to interpret 75%–100% of cases (11 of 20, 55%). The majority believed that PACS improved patient care (15 of 20, 75%) and their educational experience (15 of 20, 75%). A minority believed that increased patient throughput was harmful to the educational experience (five of 20, 25%) because it permitted attending radiologists to review cases too quickly (four of 20, 20%). Residents favored PACS over hard-copy images for ease of manipulation, resolution, and ability to see pathologic conditions and normal anatomic characteristics. Conclusion Residents believe that PACS has positively affected their learning experience and does not negatively affect the quality of resident education.

09-47 Impact of PACS on radiology resident education: The resident's perspective

09-47 Impact of PACS on radiology resident education: The resident's perspective

Status of mammography education and knowledge of radiology residents.

To evaluate breast imaging training and knowledge of radiology residents over a 3-year period. From 1992 through 1994, the American College of Radiology (ACR) sponsored a 1-day comprehensive breast imaging seminar, which was attended by 2,249 radiology residents at the 6-week radiologic-pathology course of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology. At each course, the residents were asked to complete a demographics survey and identical pre- and post-tests to assess knowledge before and after the seminar. The majority of residents who attended the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology course were in their 2nd or 3rd year of radiology training, and 75% (1,682 of 2,249 residents) responded that they had training in breast imaging before the ACR seminar. There was an increase in the median residency training time devoted to mammography from 4-6 weeks in 1992 to 8-11 weeks in 1994. There was no statistically significant change in the pretest scores over the 3 years, with persistent weaknesses in knowledge about quality control and mammographic technique. There was improvement in short-term knowledge after the ACR seminar. Despite increased time spent in breast imaging training in radiology residency programs from 1992 through 1994, there was no statistically significant improvement in the baseline knowledge of residents who attended this course. This 1-day course improved short-term knowledge of breast imaging.

Decreasing the number of radiology residents: The impact on radiology departments and resident education

Decreasing the number of radiology residents: The impact on radiology departments and resident education

Radiology Resident Education: Instilling an Appreciation of the Medical Literature

Radiology Resident Education: Instilling an Appreciation of the Medical Literature

Journal publications in radiology education. A review of the literature, 1966-1986.

Published scholarly activity pertaining to radiology education is relatively uncommon compared with an extensive clinical literature. To guide future radiology educational efforts in a time of changing priorities and practice patterns, the authors undertook an in-depth review and analysis of the existing radiology education literature covering the 20-year period from 1966 to 1986. A total of 194 articles was identified via a computerized literature search and manual cross-checking of cited references. Articles pertinent to medical student radiology education (36.6%) or radiology resident education (29.9%) predominated. The majority of published radiology education articles were editorials (35.5%) or expository in nature (49.5%). Surveys (5.1%) and experimental research (8.7%) comprised the balance. Although editorial opinions and personal reflections are important and valuable resources for radiology educators, a substantial lack of empirical research in radiology education exists. Additional knowledge in underdeveloped research areas is essential for future curriculum planning and development in radiology education.