Academic Radiology in the United States: Defining Gender Disparities in Faculty Leadership and Academic Rank.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Female physicians in academic medicine have faced barriers that potentially affect representation in different fields and delay promotion. Little is known about gender representation differences in United States academic radiology departments, particularly within the most pursued subspecialties. PURPOSE: To determine whether gender differences exist in United States academic radiology departments across seven subspecialties with respect to academic ranks, departmental leadership positions, experience, and scholarly metrics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this cross-sectional study from November 2018 to June 2020, a database of United States academic radiologists at 129 academic departments in seven subspecialties was created. Each radiologist's academic rank, departmental leadership position (executive-level - Chair, Director, Chief, and Department or Division Head vs vice-level - vice, assistant, or associate positions of executive level), self-identified gender, years in practice, and measures of scholarly productivity (number of publications, citations, and h-index) were compiled from institutional websites, Doximity, LinkedIn, Scopus, and official NPI profiles. The primary outcome, gender composition differences in these cohorts, was analyzed using Chi2 while continuous data were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test. The adjusted gender difference for all factors was determined using a multivariate logistic regression model. RESULTS: Overall, 5086 academic radiologists (34.7% women) with a median 14 years of practice (YOP) were identified and indexed. There were 919 full professors (26.1% women, p < 0.01) and 1055 executive-level leadership faculty (30.6% women, p < 0.01). Within all subspecialties except breast imaging, women were in the minority (35.4% abdominal, 79.1% breast, 12.1% interventional, 27.5% musculoskeletal, 22.8% neuroradiology, 45.1% pediatric, and 19.5% nuclear; p < 0.01). Relative to subspecialty gender composition, women full professors were underrepresented in abdominal, pediatric, and nuclear radiology (p < 0.05) and women in any executive-level leadership were underrepresented in abdominal and nuclear radiology (p < 0.05). However, after adjusting for h-index and YOP, gender did not influence rates of professorship or executive leadership. The strongest single predictors for professorship or executive leadership were h-index and YOP. CONCLUSION: Women academic radiologists in the United States are underrepresented among senior faculty members despite having similar levels of experience as men. Gender disparities regarding the expected number of women senior faculty members relative to individual subspecialty gender composition were more pronounced in abdominal and nuclear radiology, and less pronounced in breast and neuroradiology. Overall, h-index and YOP were the strongest predictors for full-professorship and executive leadership among faculty. KEY RESULTS: ● Though women comprise 34.7% of all academic radiologists, women are underrepresented among senior faculty members (26.1% of full professors and 30.6% of executive leadership) ● Women in junior faculty positions had higher median years of practice than their male counterparts (10 vs 8 for assistant professors, 21 vs 13 for vice leadership) ● Years of practice and h-index were the strongest predictors for full professorship and executive leadership.

Medical Malpractice in Image-Guided Procedures: An Analysis of 184 Cases.

PURPOSE: To report types and outcomes of a small subset of malpractice lawsuits filed against physicians performing image-guided interventions in the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In total, 1,312 cases involving common image-guided procedures were reviewed from the Westlaw and LexisNexis databases in the United States from 1963 to 2018. Social Security, disability, employment contract, product liability, criminal, and government employment claims were excluded. The final legal cohort comprised 184 (14.0%) cases. They were categorized into vascular (113/184; 61.4%), inferior vena cava filter (n = 22; 12.0%), neurointerventional (n = 13; 7.1%), gastrointestinal and genitourinary (n = 17; 9.2%), foreign body (n = 7; 3.8%), biopsy related (n = 9; 4.9%), and oncologic (n = 3; 1.6%) interventions. Claims were also organized by defendant type and by specialty, complication stage, verdict, and year. RESULTS: From 2001 to 2018, 58.7% of claims (n = 108) were reported. Procedural complications related to arteriography were most commonly litigated (63/113; 55.8%). Claims arising from intra-procedural and early post-procedural complications were common (84/184; 45.7%). Community hospitals were most often named as defendants (61/184; 33.2%). In reported outcomes, courts sided with defendants in 81.9% (104/127) of the cases, similar to national malpractice trends. Unreported outcomes comprised 31% (57/184) of the data. CONCLUSIONS: For the small subset of claims published within national legal databases, intra-procedural and early post-procedural complications after diagnostic arteriography were most commonly litigated. Most (81.9%) claims with reported outcomes sided with the defendant physician.