Errors of epinephrine administration during severe allergic-like contrast reactions: lessons learned from a bi-institutional study using high-fidelity simulation testing.

PURPOSE: To determine the most common errors of epinephrine administration during severe allergic-like contrast reaction management using high-fidelity simulation surrogates. MATERIALS AND METHODS: IRB approval and informed consent were obtained for this HIPAA-compliant bi-institutional prospective study of 40 radiology residents, fellows, and faculty who were asked to manage a structured high-fidelity severe allergic-like contrast reaction scenario (i.e., mild hives progressing to mild bronchospasm, then bronchospasm unresponsive to bronchodilators, and finally anaphylactic shock) on an interactive manikin. Intravenous (IV) and intramuscular epinephrine ampules were available to all participants, and the manikin had a functioning intravenous catheter for all scenarios. Video recordings of their performance were reviewed by experts in contrast reaction management, and errors in epinephrine administration were recorded and characterized. RESULTS: No participant (0/40) failed to give indicated epinephrine, but more than half (58% [23/40]) committed an error while doing so. The most common mistake was to administer epinephrine as the first-line treatment for mild bronchospasm (33% [13/40]). Other common errors were to administer IV epinephrine without a subsequent IV saline flush or concomitant IV fluids (25% [10/40]), administer an overdose of epinephrine (8% [3/40]), and administer epinephrine 1:1000 intravenously (8% [3/40]). CONCLUSION: Epinephrine administration errors are common. Many radiologists fail to administer albuterol as the first-line treatment for mild bronchospasm and fail to flush the IV catheter when administering IV epinephrine. High-fidelity contrast reaction scenarios can be used to identify areas for training improvement.

What Program Directors Think About Resident Recruitment: Results of the 2023 Spring Survey of the Association of Program Directors in Radiology (APDR) Part I.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The Association of Program Directors in Radiology (APDR) administers an annual survey to assess issues and experiences related to residency program management and education. Our purpose is to provide the response data from the 2023 survey and discuss its insights on the impact of COVID-19 on resident recruitment (Part I) and education (Part II), which can be used to facilitate planning and resource allocation for the evolving needs of programs and their leadership. In Part I, we consider the effects of ERAS preference signaling, the virtual interview format, and the potential of a universal interview release date. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An observational, cross-sectional study of the APDR membership was performed using a web-based survey consisting of 45 questions, 23 of which pertain to virtual recruitment and are discussed in Part I of a two-part survey analysis. All active APDR members (n = 393) were invited to participate in the survey. RESULTS: The response rate was 32% (124 of 393). 83% reported that signaling increased the likelihood of an interview offer. 96% reported only offering virtual interviews; however, 59% intended to offer virtual-only interviews in the future. 53% would adhere to a universal interview release date but an additional 44% would do so depending on the agreed date, Results were tallied using Qualtrics software and qualitative responses were tabulated or summarized as comments. CONCLUSIONS: Virtual recruitment is expected to continue for many programs and most respondents would accept a universal interview release date. Preference signaling and geographic signaling are considered positive additions to the application process.

What Program Directors Think About Resident Education: Results of the 2023 Spring Survey of the Association of Program Directors in Radiology (APDR) Part II.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The Association of Program Directors in Radiology (APDR) administers an annual survey to assess issues and experiences related to residency program management and education. Response data from the 2023 survey provides insights on the impact of COVID-19 on resident recruitment (Part I) and education (Part II), which can be used to facilitate planning and resource allocation for the evolving needs of programs and their leadership. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An observational, cross-sectional study of the APDR membership was performed using a web-based survey consisting of 45 questions, 12 of which pertain to resident education in the post-pandemic era and are discussed in Part II of a two-part survey analysis. All active APDR members (n = 393) were invited to participate in the survey. RESULTS: The response rate was 32% (124 of 393). Results were tallied using Qualtrics software and qualitative responses were tabulated or summarized as comments. CONCLUSIONS: The primary challenges to resident education are faculty burnout, rising case volumes, and remote instruction. However, most program leaders report that in-person readouts are much more common than remote readouts. The ability to offer both in-person and remote AIRP sessions is viewed positively. Most program leaders require Authorized User certification, although many do not think all residents need it. Assessment of procedural competence varies by the type of procedure and is similar to graduates' self-assessment of competence.

Imaging of pediatric floor of mouth lesions.

There is a vast spectrum of pathology that afflicts the floor of mouth in children. These span inflammatory conditions, vascular malformations, developmental anomalies, benign tumors and malignancies. While this area is readily evaluated on clinical exam, imaging is often performed to better characterize the disorder prior to management. The imaging modalities most frequently utilized are US, CT and MR. The purpose of this article is to describe the primary conditions that occur in this location in children so that radiologists may provide an appropriate differential diagnosis. These include ranula, venolymphatic malformation, dermoid, teratoma, foregut duplication cyst, hairy polyp, thyroglossal duct cyst and rhabdomyosarcoma. For each pathological condition, there will be a focus on describing its imaging manifestation. Floor of mouth anatomy, imaging approach during both prenatal and postnatal life and etiologies will be discussed. Surgical considerations and operative photographs will also be presented.

Allergic reactions to iodinated contrast media: premedication considerations for patients at risk.

The objectives of this article are to review allergy-type reactions to iodinated contrast media and the protocols utilized to prevent or reduce the occurrence of these adverse reactions in high-risk patients. We will begin by discussing the types or classifications of the adverse reactions to iodinated contrast media. We will then discuss reaction mechanisms, identify the patients at highest risk for adverse reactions, and clarify common misperceptions about the risk. Finally, we will discuss the actions of the medications used to help reduce or prevent allergy-type reactions to iodinated contrast media, the protocols used to help reduce or prevent contrast reactions in high-risk patients, and the potential side effects of these medications. We will also discuss the high-risk patient who has received premedication due to a prior index reaction and discuss the risk of having a subsequent reaction, termed "breakthrough reaction." Identifying patient at high risk for an "allergy-type" reaction to contrast media is an essential task of the radiologist. Prevention of or reduction of the risk of an adverse reaction is critical to patient safety. If an examination can be performed without contrast in a patient at high risk for an allergy-type reaction, it may be appropriate to avoid contrast. However, there are situations where contrast media is necessary, and the radiologist plays a vital role in preventing or mitigating an allergy-type reaction.

Prospective randomized comparison of standard didactic lecture versus high-fidelity simulation for radiology resident contrast reaction management training.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to assess whether high-fidelity simulation-based training is more effective than traditional didactic lecture to train radiology residents in the management of contrast reactions. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: This was a prospective study of 44 radiology residents randomized into a simulation group versus a lecture group. All residents attended a contrast reaction didactic lecture. Four months later, baseline knowledge was assessed with a written test, which we refer to as the "pretest." After the pretest, the 21 residents in the lecture group attended a repeat didactic lecture and the 23 residents in the simulation group underwent high-fidelity simulation-based training with five contrast reaction scenarios. Next, all residents took a second written test, which we refer to as the "posttest." Two months after the posttest, both groups took a third written test, which we refer to as the "delayed posttest," and underwent performance testing with a high-fidelity severe contrast reaction scenario graded on predefined critical actions. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between the simulation and lecture group pretest, immediate posttest, or delayed posttest scores. The simulation group performed better than the lecture group on the severe contrast reaction simulation scenario (p = 0.001). The simulation group reported improved comfort in identifying and managing contrast reactions and administering medications after the simulation training (p ≤ 0.04) and was more comfortable than the control group (p = 0.03), which reported no change in comfort level after the repeat didactic lecture. CONCLUSION: When compared with didactic lecture, high-fidelity simulation-based training of contrast reaction management shows equal results on written test scores but improved performance during a high-fidelity severe contrast reaction simulation scenario.

"What Program Directors Think" V: Results of the 2019 Spring Survey of the Association of Program Directors in Radiology (APDR).

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The Association of Program Directors in Radiology (APDR) surveys its membership annually on hot topics and new developments in radiology residency training. Here we report the results of that annual survey. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A web-based survey was posed to the APDR membership in the Fall of 2018. Members were asked 43 questions on program staffing, resident education resources/funding, impact of the integrated-Interventional Radiology residency program on Diagnostic Radiology program resources, resident interest in imaging informatics, Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requirements on resident practice habits data reporting, institutional reliance on residents for clinical coverage, teaching format in the post-oral board era, resident conference attendance, confidentiality of the Match rank list, Early Specialization in Interventional Radiology pathway recruitment and selection, Diagnostic Radiology and Interventional Radiology program relationships, independent resident call, pediatric radiology training, diversity and unconscious bias training, and social media in radiology education. RESULTS: Responses were collected electronically, results were tallied using Qualtrics software, and qualitative responses were tabulated or summarized as comments. There were 86 respondents with a response rate of 31.3%. CONCLUSION: Survey result highlights include perceived resident interest in imaging informatics with the vast majority of residency programs offering an informatics curriculum; the provision of resident practice habits data by nearly all residency programs despite lack of clarity surrounding this Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requirement; continued use of case-taking in the post-oral boards era; frequent disclosure of the Match rank list to departmental and hospital administration; low penetration of unconscious bias training in academic radiology; and finally, the successful integration of interventional and diagnostic radiology training programs.

"What program directors think IV": Results of the 2017 Annual Survey of the Association of Program Directors in Radiology.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The Association of Program Directors in Radiology (APDR) regularly surveys its members to gather information regarding a broad range of topics related to radiology residency. The survey results provide insight into the opinions of residency program leadership across the country. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is an observational cross-sectional study using a web-based survey posed to the APDR membership in the fall of 2017. The final survey consisted of 53 items, 48 multiple choice questions and five write-in comments. An invitation to complete the survey was sent to all 319 active APDR members. RESULTS: Deidentified responses were collected electronically, tallied utilizing Qualtrics software, and aggregated for the purposes of analysis and reporting at the 66th annual meeting of the Association of University Radiologists. The response rate was 36%. CONCLUSION: Over the past 16 years, more PDs have assistant and APDs to administer growing residency programs, but the time allocation for these APDs has come from the PD's protected time. An overwhelming majority of PDs consider independent call beneficial to residents and most think a call assistant is desirable. The vast majority of PDs support a unified fellowship match and allow resident moonlighting. Most fourth year residents are actively or moderately involved in clinical work and teaching. The majority of PDs have lost or expect to lose DR training positions to the new IR/DR programs. In a competitive match, PDs do not rely on residency interviews in their selection process.

Should Radiology Delay the Start of Fellowships? A Survey of the APDR.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Several major medical specialties have recently considered delaying the start date of their fellowship training programs to allow for completion of their trainees' residency obligations. Radiology program directors (PDs) have voiced the need for a similar solution, as fellowship start dates at some institutions now occur well before the end of residency training. The objectives of this study are to assess the current state of the radiology fellowship transition and understand its impact on residency programs and clinical services. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Survey Monkey (Palo Alto, CA) was used to create a survey consisting of 9 multiple choice and 2 free text questions. The survey was approved by the survey committee of the Association of Program Directors in Radiology (APDR) and distributed via email to all 240 APDR members in November 2018. The survey was closed after 30 days. RESULTS: The response rate was 67% (160/240). Fifty-nine percent of respondents indicated some of their residents are asked to arrive at fellowships before July 1, often several days early for orientation and picture archiving and communication system (PACS) training. Sixteen percent of respondents said their own institutions ask incoming fellows to arrive early. Sixty-four percent of respondents indicated that this causes staffing problems. Seventy-eight percent of respondents supported considering a delay to the start of radiology fellowships. CONCLUSION: Most APDR members claim that residents are asked to arrive at fellowships early to complete orientation and training before July 1, and most say that this produces staffing problems on services. A significant majority of respondents support a discussion regarding delaying fellowship start dates.

Gender Diversity in Academic Radiology Departments: Barriers and Best Practices to Optimizing Inclusion and Developing Women Leaders.

Gender diversity remains a challenge for radiology. As we aspire to embrace Diversity 3.0 and the goal of making diversity core to our organizations' mission, there must be increasing awareness of the barriers to achieving inclusion and to best practices for making diversity integral to achieving excellence. This article reviews the literature on gender diversity in radiology and in academic radiology leadership and discusses lessons learned from non-health-care industry and from academic radiology departments that have been successful in developing and supporting female employees.

"What Program Directors Think" III: Results of the 2014/2015 Annual Surveys of the Association of Program Directors in Radiology (APDR).

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The Association of Program Directors in Radiology regularly surveys its members regarding issues of importance to support radiology residency programs and their directors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is an observational cross-sectional study using two Web-based surveys posed to the Association of Program Directors in Radiology membership in the fall of 2014 (49 items) and the spring of 2015 (46 items) on the subjects of importance to the members, including the Accreditation Council on Graduate Medical Education Milestones, the Non-Interpretative Skills Curriculum, the American Board of Radiology Core Examination, the effect of the new resident testing and program accreditation paradigms on training outcomes, the 2015 Residency Match, the Interventional Radiology/Diagnostic Radiology (IR/DR) Residency, and Program Director (PD)/Program Coordinator resources. RESULTS: Responses were collected electronically, results were tallied using SurveyMonkey software, and qualitative responses were tabulated or summarized as comments. Findings were reported during the 63rd annual meeting of the Association of University Radiologists. The maximal response rate was 33% in the fall of 2014 and 36% in the spring of 2015. CONCLUSIONS: PDs believed that the radiology Milestones, now largely implemented, did not affect overall resident evaluation, was not reflective of resident experience, and actually made evaluation of residents more difficult. PDs also felt that although the American Board of Radiology oral examination had been a better test for clinical practice preparedness, their new residents knew at least as much as before. There was little evidence of recall reemergence. The radiology training community saw a drop in residency applicant quality as demonstrated by the United States Medical Licensing Examination scores and clinical rotation grades. Because the new IR/DR Residency positions were to be funded at the expense of the traditional DR positions, the majority of PDs expected a negative effect of the impending IR/DR match on their DR recruitment. PDs were in favor of a unified clinical radiology curriculum similar to the Radiological Society of North America online physics modules.

Bony cochlear nerve canal stenosis and speech discrimination in pediatric unilateral hearing loss.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To examine the relationship between bony cochlear nerve canal (BCNC) width, degree of hearing loss, and speech discrimination in children with unilateral sensorineural hearing loss (USNHL). STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective chart review (case-control study). METHODS: Audiometric database was cross-referenced with radiologic database at pediatric tertiary care facility to identify children with USNHL and temporal bone computed tomography. BCNC widths were measured independently by two radiologists blinded to affected ear. Regression analyses investigated associations among variables. RESULTS: One hundred and sixty children with USNHL had temporal bone imaging. Mean BCNC width was significantly smaller in affected ears, P = 0.0001. Narrower width was associated with more severe hearing loss, P = 0.01. Among children who had narrower cochlear nerve canals in affected ears compared to unaffected ears, smaller width was associated with lower speech discrimination score, P = 0.03. Increasing asymmetry in BCNC width between affected and unaffected ears was associated with poorer discrimination scores, P = 0.02. Among ears with asymmetrically smaller cochlear nerve canals, a 1-mm reduction in cochlear canal width between the normal and affected ear was associated with 30.4% lower word recognition score percentage in the affected ear, P = < 0.001. CONCLUSION: There is a significant association between BCNC stenosis and impaired speech discrimination, independent of degree of hearing loss. Further investigation is needed to determine whether BCNC stenosis is a poor prognostic factor for auditory rehabilitation.

24/7/365 in-house radiologist coverage: effect on resident education.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To compare programs with and without 24-hour/7 days a week/365 days a year (24/7/365) in-house radiologist coverage regarding resident perceptions of their on-call experience, volume of resident dictations on call, and report turnaround time. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Residents from six academic radiology departments were invited to participate in an 11-item online survey. Survey items were related to workload, level of autonomy, faculty feedback, comfort level, faculty supervision, and overall educational experience while on call from 8 pm to 8 am. Each site provided data on imaging volume, radiologist coverage, volume of examinations dictated by residents, number of residents on call, and report turnaround time from 8 pm to 8 am. F-ratios and eta-squares were calculated to determine the relationships between dependent and independent variables. A P value < .05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: A total of 146 (67%) of 217 residents responded. Residents in programs with 24/7/365 in-house radiologist coverage dictated a lower percentage of examinations (46%) compared with other residents (81%) and rated faculty feedback more positively (mean 3.8 vs. 3.3) but rated their level of autonomy (mean 3.6 vs. 4.5) and educational experience (mean 3.6 vs. 4.2) more negatively (all P < .05). Report turnaround time was lower in programs with 24/7/365 coverage than those without (mean 1.7 hours vs. 9.1 hours). The majority of resident comments were negative and related to loss of autonomy with 24/7/365 coverage. CONCLUSION: More rapid report turnaround time related to 24/7/365 coverage may come at the expense of resident education.

How to report a research study.

Incomplete reporting hampers the evaluation of results and bias in clinical research studies. Guidelines for reporting study design and methods have been developed to encourage authors and journals to include the required elements. Recent efforts have been made to standardize the reporting of clinical health research including clinical guidelines. In this article, the reporting of diagnostic test accuracy studies, screening studies, therapeutic studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, cost-effectiveness assessments (CEA), recommendations and/or guidelines, and medical education studies is discussed. The available guidelines, many of which can be found at the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research network, on how to report these different types of health research are also discussed. We also hope that this article can be used in academic programs to educate the faculty and trainees of the available resources to improve our health research.

How to critically appraise the clinical literature.

Recent efforts have been made to standardize the critical appraisal of clinical health care research. In this article, critical appraisal of diagnostic test accuracy studies, screening studies, therapeutic studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, cost-effectiveness studies, recommendations and/or guidelines, and medical education studies is discussed as are the available instruments to appraise the literature. By having standard appraisal instruments, these studies can be appraised more easily for completeness, bias, and applicability for implementation. Appraisal requires a different set of instruments, each designed for the individual type of research. We also hope that this article can be used in academic programs to educate the faculty and trainees of the available resources to improve critical appraisal of health research.

The next accreditation system in radiology: a report from the APDR residency structure committee.

In a move to emphasize the educational outcomes of training programs, the ACGME has created the Next Accreditation System (NAS). The stated goals of NAS include aiding the ACGME in the accreditation of programs based on educational outcome measures, decreasing program burdens associated with the conventional process-based approach to ACGME accreditation, allowing good programs to innovate while enabling struggling programs to steadily improve, and providing public accountability for outcomes. Diagnostic radiology is among the first group of specialties to undergo NAS implementation and began operating under the NAS in July 2013. This article describes the various components of the NAS and explains the new elements, including the clinical learning environment review program, the milestones, the clinical competency committee, and the self-study visits.

Prospective randomized study of contrast reaction management curricula: computer-based interactive simulation versus high-fidelity hands-on simulation.

PURPOSE: We developed a computer-based interactive simulation program for teaching contrast reaction management to radiology trainees and compared its effectiveness to high-fidelity hands-on simulation training. MATERIALS AND METHODS: IRB approved HIPAA compliant prospective study of 44 radiology residents, fellows and faculty who were randomized into either the high-fidelity hands-on simulation group or computer-based simulation group. All participants took separate written tests prior to and immediately after their intervention. Four months later participants took a delayed written test and a hands-on high-fidelity severe contrast reaction scenario performance test graded on predefined critical actions. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between the computer and hands-on groups' written pretest, immediate post-test, or delayed post-test scores (p>0.6 for all). Both groups' scores improved immediately following the intervention (p<0.001). The delayed test scores 4 months later were still significantly higher than the pre-test scores (p ≤ 0.02). The computer group's performance was similar to the hands-on group on the severe contrast reaction simulation scenario test (p = 0.7). There were also no significant differences between the computer and hands-on groups in performance on the individual core competencies of contrast reaction management during the contrast reaction scenario. CONCLUSION: It is feasible to develop a computer-based interactive simulation program to teach contrast reaction management. Trainees that underwent computer-based simulation training scored similarly on written tests and on a hands-on high-fidelity severe contrast reaction scenario performance test as those trained with hands-on high-fidelity simulation.