Status of LGBTQ+ Inclusion: Multi-Institution Assessment of US Radiology Residencies.

INTRODUCTION: An inclusive residency program is crucial to the recruitment and retention of competitive and diverse applicants. The radiology lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning, or another diverse gender identity (LGBTQ+) inclusion audit was published in 2022, which provided a road map for assessing the inclusivity of a program's policies, facilities, culture, and engagement. In this multi-institutional trial, we detail the results of the LGBTQ+ inclusion audit for nine US radiology residency programs. METHODS: A volunteer cohort of academic radiology programs was recruited through the Radiology Residency Education Research Alliance. The LGBTQ+ inclusion audit was modified to apply to a multi-institutional study. Participating programs performed the audit from December 2023 to February 2024. Pre- and postaudit surveys were distributed to capture participants subjective assessment of inclusivity at their programs. RESULTS: Nine US radiology residency programs completed the audit. Audit scores ranged from 6 out of 10 to 9 out of 10; no program received a perfect 10 out of 10 score. Inclusive facilities and institutional culture scored highly, with eight of nine programs reporting all milestones met in these areas. The lowest-performing areas were department culture and community engagement with only three of nine and four of nine programs reporting "all milestones met." After the audit, programs overall reported improved self-perceived inclusivity, with postaudit survey scores increasing in areas related to department policy, inclusive facilities, and LGBTQ+ community outreach. DISCUSSION: Participating radiology residency programs demonstrated an overall high level of LGBTQ+ inclusivity; however, all programs identified inclusion shortcomings in department policy and practice. Intentional review of a department can be a helpful tool to promote a welcoming and healthy environment for a diverse radiology practice.

Brave New World: Challenges and Opportunities in the COVID-19 Virtual Interview Season.

The COVID-19 pandemic has forced the transition of the traditional residency interview to a virtual format. This new interview format creates additional challenges and opportunities for both programs and applicants. The specific challenges of the virtual interview format are described, as well as means to mitigate those challenges. In addition, opportunities to improve residency selection from the program end are described.

Role of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in evaluation of thermal ablation zone.

PURPOSE: Thermal ablation has emerged as a mainstay therapy for primary and metastatic liver malignancy. Percutaneous thermal ablation is usually performed under CT and/or ultrasound guidance. CT guidance frequently utilizes iodinated contrast for tumor targeting, with additional radiation and contrast required at the end of the procedure to ensure satisfactory ablation margins. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) is an imaging technique utilizing microbubble contrast agents to demonstrate blood flow and tissue perfusion. In this study, we performed a retrospective review to assess the utility of CEUS in the immediate post ablation detection of residual tumor. METHODS: Sixty-four ablations were retrospectively reviewed. 6/64 ablations (9.4%) had residual tumor on the first follow-up imaging after thermal ablation. There were two groups of patients. Group 1 underwent standard protocol thermal ablation with CT and/or ultrasound guidance. Group 2 not only had thermal ablation with a protocol identical to group 1, but also had CEUS assessment at the conclusion of the procedure to ensure satisfactory ablation zone. RESULTS: The residual tumor rate in group 1 was 16.7% and the residual tumor rate in group 2 was 0%. The difference between the groups was statistically significant with a p value of 0.023. The results suggest that using CEUS assessment immediately after the ablation procedure reduces the rate of residual tumor after thermal ablation. CONCLUSION: CEUS evaluation at the end of an ablation procedure is a powerful technique providing critical information to the treating interventional radiologist, without additional nephrotoxic contrast or ionizing radiation.

Ohio dental care providers' treatment of young children, 2002.

BACKGROUND: Adequate access to dental care for young children--particularly those from low-income families--is a public concern. The authors conducted a survey of Ohio dental care providers to examine factors influencing their willingness to care for these children. METHODS: Random samples of Ohio general practitioner (GPs) dentists and pediatric dentists (PDs) and all Ohio safety-net dental clinics completed a mail survey regarding treatment of children aged 0 through 5 years. The authors categorized responses by provider type and further analyzed GPs' responses by years since graduation and geographic character. RESULTS: Few Ohio GPs (8 percent) recommended a first dental visit by 1 year of age. While 91 percent of GPs treated children aged 3 through 5 years, only 34 percent treated children aged 0 through 2 years, most often for emergency visits or examinations. Only 7 percent of all GPs and 29 percent of PDs accepted patients enrolled in Medicaid without limitations. CONCLUSIONS: Children's being young (0-2 years of age) and having Medicaid as a payment source made GPs substantially less likely to treat them. Children's being enrolled in Head Start made GPs somewhat more likely to treat them. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: New strategies for ensuring dental care access for young children from low-income families are necessary. Such strategies may take the form of interpeer advocacy, education, practice incentives or creation of coordinated GP and PD teams.

Parent or caregiver, staff, and dentist perspectives on access to dental care issues for head start children in Ohio.

OBJECTIVES: We conducted 5 surveys on consumer and provider perspectives on access to dental care for Ohio Head Start children to assess the need and appropriate strategies for action. METHODS: We collected information from Head Start children (open-mouth screenings), their parents or caregivers (questionnaire and telephone interviews), Head Start staff (interviews), and dentists (questionnaire). Geocoded addresses were also analyzed. RESULTS: Twenty-eight percent of Head Start children had at least 1 decayed tooth. For the 11% of parents whose children could not get desired dental care, cost of care or lack of insurance (34%) and dental office factors (20%) were primary factors. Only 7% of general dentists and 29% of pediatric dentists reported accepting children aged 0 through 5 years of age as Medicaid recipients without limitation. Head Start staff and dentists felt that poor appointment attendance negatively affected children's receiving care, but parents/caregivers said finding accessible dentists was the major problem. CONCLUSIONS: Many Ohio Head Start children do not receive dental care. Medicaid and patient age were primary dental office limitations that are partly offset by the role Head Start plays in ensuring dental care. Dentists, Head Start staff, and parents/caregivers have different perspectives on the problem of access to dental care.