Subspecialty Employment Needs in Academic Radiology Settings Across Canada.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this survey was to identify current and projected subspecialty employment needs across Canadian academic radiology practices. METHODS: An electronic survey was distributed to academic radiology department heads within the faculties of medicine at Canadian universities between September and October 2019. Respondents identified the number of partnership track radiologists hired in the last academic year, the number of fellowship-trained new hires, and the top 3 subspecialties for new and prospective hires. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. RESULTS: Nine academic radiology department heads responded to the survey (75% response rate) with good regional representation across Canada. Ninety-five percent of new hires within the last academic year were subspecialty fellowship trained. The top subspecialties for new hires in the last year were abdominal imaging and interventional neuroradiology, with 77.8% and 44.4% of academic leaders reporting them as one of the top 3 subspecialties, respectively. The top 3 subspecialties for prospective hires in the next academic year included musculoskeletal imaging (n = 6, 66.7%), followed by abdominal imaging (n = 5, 55.6%), with pediatric radiology (n = 3, 33.3%) and cardiothoracic imaging (n = 3, 33.3%) tying for third place. There was some variability in the subspecialty needs for hires between regions. CONCLUSIONS: The survey results provide valuable information about the current and future subspecialty needs of academic radiology practices. The data obtained can provide guidance to trainees regarding fellowship training options that will optimize their future employability.

Time Requirement and Feasibility of a Systematic Quality Peer Review of Reporting in Radiology.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the human resources required for a retrospective quality review of different percentages of all routine diagnostic procedures in the Department of Radiology at Bern University Hospital, Switzerland. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three board-certified radiologists retrospectively evaluated the quality of the radiological reports of a total of 150 examinations (5 different examination types: abdominal CT, chest CT, mammography, conventional X-ray images and abdominal MRI). Each report was assigned a RADPEER score of 1 to 3 (score 1: concur with previous interpretation; score 2: discrepancy in interpretation/not ordinarily expected to be made; score 3: discrepancy in interpretation/should be made most of the time). The time (in seconds, s) required for each review was documented and compared. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to calculate the total workload for reviewing different percentages of the total annual reporting volume of the clinic. RESULTS: Among the total of 450 reviews analyzed, 91.1 % (410/450) were assigned a score of 1 and 8.9 % (40/450) were assigned scores of 2 or 3. The average time (in seconds) required for a peer review was 60.4 s (min. 5 s, max. 245 s). The reviewer with the greatest clinical experience needed significantly less time for reviewing the reports than the two reviewers with less clinical expertise (p < 0.05). Average review times were longer for discrepant ratings with a score of 2 or 3 (p < 0.05). The total time requirement calculated for reviewing all 5 types of examination for one year would be more than 1200 working hours. CONCLUSION: A retrospective peer review of reports of radiological examinations using the RADPEER system requires considerable human resources. However, to improve quality, it seems feasible to peer review at least a portion of the total yearly reporting volume. KEY POINTS: · A systematic retrospective assessment of the content of radiological reports using the RADPEER system involves high personnel costs.. · The retrospective assessment of all reports of a clinic or practice seems unrealistic due to the lack of highly specialized personnel.. · At least part of all reports should be reviewed with the aim of improving the quality of reports.. CITATION FORMAT: · Maurer MH, Brönnimann M, Schroeder C et al. Time Requirement and Feasibility of a Systematic Quality Peer Review of Reporting in Radiology. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2021; 193: 160 - 167.

Estimation of the Effective Dose of Radiation Workers: Optimization Based on the Weight Percentile.

Radiation workers might be exposed to polyenergetic photon radiation beams at different directions in their working environments. In this regard, their effective dose (E) should be accurately estimated using a two-dosimeter algorithm (TDA), based on the measurements of two thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) or film badges that are mounted on the front and back of the body. However, considering different human anatomies, radiation workers may have a variety of weight percentiles. This work sought to find whether TDA obtained for the reference weight percentile (50) can be used for higher weight percentiles (including; 65, 75, 85, and 95). MCNPX was used to simulate different weight percentiles on the revised ORNL phantom by adding extra layers of muscle and adipose on the torso. Then front and back TLD responses were calculated for external beam photon energies of 40 keV to 10 MeV in different irradiation geometries. The results revealed that E value declines with increasing the weight percentile. In this study, three TDA were investigated consisting of Eest = 0.73 Rf + 0.53 Rb (73/53), Eest = 0.55 Rf + 0.50 Rb (55/50), and Eest = 0.70 Rf + 0.30 Rb (70/30). The ratio of Eest/E was calculated for each TDA in different energy bins and weight percentiles. Results obtained using the 55/50 and 70/30 showed higher underestimation for most of the energy bins, especially for PA and AP geometries. Compared to these two TDA, the 73/53 algorithm resulted in higher overestimation for RLAT and LLAT geometries for the same energy bins. Variation of the algorithms showed a similar trend for the studied weight percentiles. To conclude, results obtained by TDA for the 50% weight percentile are applicable for weight percentiles >50%.

Women in radiology: why is the pipeline still leaking and how can we plug it?

Today, >50% of medical students are women. This proportion, however, dramatically decreases throughout the higher levels of academia, a phenomenon described as the "leaky pipeline." This gender disparity is particularly pronounced in academic radiology, mirrored by a significant lack of women in editorial board positions, key authorship positions, and conference keynote lectures. The scientific invisibility is not only a key hurdle facing women in radiology, the lack of female role models and mentors in this context might also negatively affect career choices of young female radiologists thereby further widen the existing gender gap. In this article, the origins of the "leaky pipeline," the reasons for women's choice or rejection of careers in academic medicine, as well as solutions as to how the continued loss of a large part of the talent pool can be prevented, are discussed. Active monitoring and intervention are needed to identify problems, plan targeted actions, and evaluate their efficacy. Among those are measures that address a lack of support in the workplace, specific mentoring needs of women, flexible working hours and opportunities to align work and family, financial constraints, and support for returners after career breaks. Cooperative steps of politics and universities need to be taken that ensure a sustainable way forward to enable many talented women in radiology to achieve their full potential.

Gender Disparity Among Leaders of Canadian Academic Radiology Departments.

OBJECTIVE. Underrepresentation of women in the top hierarchy of academic medicine exists despite women comprising more than half of the medical school graduates and residency positions. The purpose of this study is to analyze and quantify the relationship of gender, research productivity, and career advancement in Canadian academic radiology departments. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Seventeen academic radiology departments with affiliated residency programs in Canada were searched for publicly available data on faculty to generate a database for gender and academic profiles of the radiologists. Bibliometric data were collected using Scopus archives. The associations of gender, academic ranks, and leadership positions were assessed, and a p value of ≤ 0.05 was defined as significant. Significant variables were analyzed using a multivariate linear regression model. RESULTS. Of 1266 faculty members, gender information and academic rank were available for 932 faculty members: 597 (64.05%) were men and 335 (35.95%) were women (χ2 = 21.82; p < 0.0001). Of a total of 563 assistant professors, 331 (58.79%) were men and 232 (41.21%) were women; of 258 associate professors, 177 (68.60%) were men and 81 (31.40%) were women; and of 111 professors, 89 (80.18%) were men and 22 (19.82%) were women. The gender gap widens at higher academic ranks, displaying a threefold drop in the ratio of women holding the rank of full professor (6.57%) compared with 14.91% male professors; 29.55% of women radiologists have first-in-command leadership positions compared with 70.45% of men. A comparable or higher h-index is noted for women Canadian radiologists after adjusting for number of citations, number of publications, and years of active research. CONCLUSION. Canadian academic radiology departments have fewer women radiologists in senior faculty and leadership positions. Our study results show that Canadian female radiologists at the professor level have more publications than their male counterparts.

Radiology workflow for RECIST assessment in clinical trials: Can we reconcile time-efficiency and quality?

PURPOSE: In oncology clinical trials, nonconformity issues are frequently reported. Radiological workload is increasing, thus reducing radiologists' availability and affecting diagnostic quality. We compared performances of a standard radiological workflow (SW) and a novel "hybrid workflow" (HW). METHOD: We prospectively studied imaging data of 40 patients included in RECIST 1.1 clinical trials. Ninety-six time-points were reviewed by 7 radiologists and one trained technologist. Nonconformities using the SW were retrieved from hospital archives. For the HW, radiologists performed all baseline evaluations; the technologist made subsequent measurements. Finally, the radiologists checked the technologist's findings before confirming the evaluations. The HW enabled implementation of an electronic reporting system. An independent body compared SW and HW reading times and nonconformity occurrences. RESULTS: Using SW, 19 types of nonconformity were found: blank report (13%); unsigned report (11%); undocumented change of tumor burden (10%); undocumented new lesions (9%); missing/wrong patients' appointment dates (7%); undocumented tumor location (5%); error in tumor burden change (5%). SW and HW nonconformities affected 55% (179/323) and 5% (2/40) of reports, respectively (p < 0.001). HW nonconformities were: one inaccurate login name was used on the platform, and one erroneous time-point number. On average, SW required 11'30″ [10'06″; 13'20″] per time-point. HW required 1'35″ [40″; 5'08″] for radiologists, and 12'18″ [11'12″; 14'18″] for the technologist. CONCLUSIONS: HW significantly reduced the number of trial nonconformities and saved 87% of radiologists' time while enabling them to apply their expertise to final decisions. HW could offer an effective opportunity for cost reduction associated with improved imaging trial quality.

Radiographer reporting: A literature review to support cancer workforce planning in England.

OBJECTIVE: Clinical Imaging contributes to screening, diagnosis, planning and monitoring of treatment and surveillance in cancer care. This literature review summarises evidence about radiographer reporting to help imaging service providers respond to Health Education England's 2017 Cancer Workforce Plan project to expand radiographer reporting in clinical service provision. KEY FINDINGS: Papers published between 1992 and 2018 were reviewed (n = 148). Evidence related to dynamic examinations (fluoroscopy, ultrasound) and mammography was excluded. Content was analysed and summarised using the following headings: clinical scope of practice, responsibilities, training, assessment, impact in practice and barriers to expansion. Radiographer reporting is well established in the United Kingdom. Scope of practice varies individually and geographically. Deployment of appropriately trained reporting radiographers is helping the NHS maintain high quality clinical imaging service provision and deliver a cost-effective increase in diagnostic capacity. CONCLUSION: Working within multiprofessional clinical imaging teams, within a defined scope of practice and with access to medical input when required, reporting radiographers augment capacity in diagnostic pathways and release radiologist time for other complex clinical imaging responsibilities.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Radiology: A Call to Action.

The US health care system is in the midst of incredible transformation. High-value, high-quality health care is the ultimate goal. Guided by the Institute of Medicine report "Crossing the Quality Chasm," the focus is to deliver care that is safe, efficient, effective, timely, patient centered, and equitable. Equity is the principle that quality of care should not vary based on patient characteristics, such as race or ethnicity. Even with the same insurance and socioeconomic status and when comorbidities, stage of presentation, and other confounders are controlled for, minorities often receive a lower quality of health care than their white counterparts. These racial and ethnic disparities in quality of care contribute to disparities in health outcomes and higher costs. Radiology is not exempt from this issue, as disparities related to imaging services have been reported in the literature. The root causes of racial and ethnic disparities in health care are complex and include the negative impact of the social determinants of health, limited access to care, as well as health system, provider, and patient factors. The field of radiology has a unique opportunity to engage in efforts to improve quality, address disparities, and achieve equity. A call to action is necessary, with a focus on addressing social determinants of health; creating culturally, linguistically, and health literacy-appropriate outreach and services; investing in cross-cultural education; and diversifying the radiology workforce. Ultimately, radiologists can provide equitable access to radiology care and promote person-centered care solutions that are tailored to the needs of diverse populations.

Health Technology Assessments in Radiology in Germany: Lack of Demand, Lack of Supply. / Health-Technology-Assessments in der Radiologie in Deutschland: Fehlende Nachfrage, fehlendes Angebot.

BACKGROUND: Health technology assessments (HTAs) are an interdisciplinary method to support sustainable, evidence-based healthcare decisions. They systematically assess medical products, procedures, and technologies with respect to medical, economic, legal, social, and ethical aspects. METHOD: This review analyzes the current use of HTAs in radiology in Germany and discusses challenges associated with HTAs. In particular, incentive structures of various players in the healthcare field involved in HTA implementation are considered for both the inpatient and outpatient sectors. Taking into account that the Joint Federal Committee (G-BA) has different authority between sectors ("ban reservation" for inpatients and "authorization right" for outpatients), we focus on the repercussions on reimbursement for new diagnosis or treatment methods by statutory health insurance companies. RESULTS: The G-BA's authority implicitly creates a paradox in terms of incentives to implement and finance HTAs: in the outpatient sector HTAs are considered necessary to evaluate new medical services while players may not have sufficient incentive to implement and finance HTAs in the inpatient sector. CONCLUSION: Characteristics of HTAs differ widely with respect to the items to be assessed. Therefore, an HTA for drug effectiveness is not easily transferable to radiological procedures. Within radiology, each method must be assessed individually (e. g. according to tumor stage). Despite these challenges, systematic compilation and critical assessment (regarding both cost and medical effectiveness) of available evidence should be a basic component of evidence-based radiology. As companies in healthcare fail to invest in studies that advance evidence-based radiology and considering the lack of incentive for such investments, public funding institutions need to accept the challenge to support studies that assess the benefit of radiological procedures. KEY POINTS: · HTAs should be a basic component of evidence-based radiology.. · G-BA's authority implicitly creates a paradox in terms of inventives to implement and finance HTAs.. · University hospitals and public funding institutions need to support studies that assess the benefit of radiological procedures.. CITATION FORMAT: · Winkelmann C, Neumann T, Zeidler J et al. Health Technology Assessments in Radiology in Germany: Lack of Demand, Lack of Supply. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2019; 191: 635 - 642.

A Survey of Imaging Informatics Fellowships and Their Curricula: Current State Assessment.

In a 2016 survey of imaging informatics ("II") fellowship graduates, the surveyed fellowship graduates expressed the "opinion that II fellowships needed further formalization and standardization" Liao et al. (J Digit Imaging, 2016). This, coupled with the fact that the original published "standardized" curriculum is about 15 years out of date in our rapidly changing systems, suggests an opportunity for curriculum improvement. Before agreeing on improved structural and content suggestions for fellowships, we completed a current-state assessment of how each fellowship organizes its education and what requirements each have for fellowship completion. In this work, we aimed to collect existing information about imaging informatics fellowship curricula by contacting institutions across the country. A survey was completed by phone with the fellowship directors of existing imaging informatics fellowships across the country. Additionally, we collected existing documentation that outlines the curricula currently in use at institutions. We reviewed both the interview responses and documentation to assess overlapping trends and institutional differences in curriculum structure and content. All fellowships had suggested reading lists, didactic lectures, and a required project for each fellow. There were required practicum activities or teaching experience each in two fellowships, and one fellowship had a mandatory certification requirement for graduation. Curriculum topics in Technical Informatics or Business and Management were covered by a majority of institutions, while Quality and Safety and Research topics had inconsistent coverage across fellowships. Our plan is to reengage II fellowship directors to develop a core curriculum, which is part of the Society of Imaging Informatics in Medicine strategic plan.

The Physician Payment Sunshine Act: Evaluating Industrial Payments in Radiology.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The characterization of payments made to physicians by pharmaceutical companies, device manufacturers, and group purchasing organizations is crucial for assessing potential conflicts of interest and their impact on practice patterns. This study examines the compensation received by general radiologists (GR) in the United States, as well as radiologists in the following five subspecialties: body imaging, neuroradiology, pediatric radiology, nuclear radiology and radiological physics, and vascular and interventional radiology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were extracted from the Open Payments database for radiology subspecialists in the United States who received installments in calendar year 2015 from pharmaceutical and device manufacturing companies. RESULTS: In 2015, a total of $43,685,052 was paid in 65,507 payments (mean $667/payment; median $32/payment) to radiologists, including 9826 GR, 362 body imaging radiologists, 479 neuroradiologists, 127 pediatric radiologists, 175 physicians in nuclear radiology and radiological physics, and 1584 vascular and interventional radiologists. Payments were unequally distributed across these six major subspecialties of radiology (p < 0.01), with GR receiving the largest number of total payments (44,695), and neuroradiologists receiving significantly higher median payments than any other subspecialty ($80 vs $32 for all radiologists; p < 0.01). Medtronic Neurovascular was the single largest payer to all radiologists combined. CONCLUSION: Commercial entities make substantial payments to radiologists, with a significant variation in payments made to the different radiology subspecialties. While the largest number of total payments was made to GGR, the highest median payments were made to neuroradiologists, and significant dispersion in these payments was seen across different geographic regions. The impact of these payments on practice patterns remains to be elucidated.

Percutaneous Vertebral Augmentation for Vertebral Compression Fractures: National Trends in the Medicare Population (2005-2015).

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of Medicare data OBJECTIVE.: To analyze trends of vertebral augmentation in the elderly Medicare population in the context of evolving evidence and varied medical society opinions. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Percutaneous vertebral augmentation offers a minimally invasive therapy for vertebral compression fractures. Numerous trials have been published on this topic with mixed results. The impact of these studies and societal recommendations on physician practice patterns is not well understood. METHODS: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services annual Medicare Physician Supplier Procedure Summary database was examined for kyphoplasty and vertebroplasty procedures from 2005 through 2015. Top provider specialties were determined based on annual procedural volume, and grouped into the three broad categories of radiology, surgery, and anesthesia/pain medicine. Data entries were independently analyzed by provider type, site of service, submitted charges, and reimbursement rates for interventions during the study period. RESULTS: Between 2005 and 2015 total annual claims for vertebral augmentation procedures in the Medicare population increased from 108.11% (37,133-77,276) peaking in 2008 and declining by 15.56% in 2009. Radiology is the largest provider of vertebral augmentation by specialty with declining market shares from 71% in 2005 to 43% in 2015. The frequency of vertebroplasty declined by 61.7% (35,409-13,478) from 2005 to 2015 with reduction in Medicare reimbursement. Annual volume of kyphoplasty grew by 18.3% (48,725-57,646) with significant increase in reimbursement for office-based procedures ($728.50/yr, P < 0.001, R = 0.69). CONCLUSION: The annual volume of vertebral augmentation declined in 2009 following two negative trials on vertebroplasty. Although these publications had a persistent negative impact on practice of vertebroplasty, the overall frequency of vertebral augmentation in the Medicare population has not changed significantly between 2005 and 2015. Instead, there has been a significant shift in provider practice patterns in favor of kyphoplasty in increasingly outpatient and office-based settings. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Comparison of Advanced Imaging Resources, Radiology Workforce, and Payment Methodologies between the United States and Canada.

The purpose of this Practice Perspectives was to review the United States and Canadian approaches to health care access and payment for advanced imaging. The historical background, governmental role, workforce, coding, payment, radiologic challenges, cost, resource intensity, and overall outcomes in longevity are reviewed.

Generalist versus Subspecialist Workforce Characteristics of Invasive Procedures Performed by Radiologists.

Purpose To explore subspecialty workforce considerations surrounding invasive procedures performed by radiologists. Materials and Methods The 2015 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Physician and Other Supplier Public Use File was used to identify all invasive procedures (Current Procedural Terminology code range, 10000-69999) billed by radiologists for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries. Radiologists were categorized by subspecialty according to the majority of their billable work-relative value units (wRVUs). Those without a single subspecialty majority work effort were deemed generalists. Procedures were categorized into three tiers of complexity (high, ≥4.0 wRVUs; mid, 1.6-3.9 wRVUs; low, ≤1.5 wRVUs). Total and tiered generalist versus subspecialist workforce composition was assessed. Results Just 25 unique services comprised more than 75% of invasive procedures performed by radiologists. Of radiologists who performed procedures, 57.5% were generalists, 15.8% were interventionalists, and 26.8% were other subspecialists. Of the radiologists who performed low-, mid-, and high-complexity procedures, generalists accounted for 46.3%, 30.9%, and 23.1%, respectively; interventionalists accounted for 35.4%, 30.9%, and 75.2%, respectively; and other subspecialists accounted for 18.3%, 14.6%, and 1.7%, respectively. Generalists were the dominant providers of six of the top 10 low-complexity and seven of the top 10 midcomplexity procedures. Interventionalists were the dominant providers of all top 10 high-complexity procedures. Nationally, over twice as many U.S. counties had local access to generalists (869 counties) for invasive procedures versus interventionalists (347 counties) or other subspecialists (380 counties). Conclusion Among radiologists, generalists perform far more procedures in more geographic locations and are more likely to serve patients with less complex service needs than are interventionalists or other subspecialists. Practices and professional societies must remain vigilant to ensure that the subspecialty evolution in radiology does not exacerbate patient access disparities. © RSNA, 2018 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

The 2017 ACR Workforce Survey: Management Trends and Strategic Needs.

The 2017 ACR Workforce Survey included questions for group leaders about management trends and areas in which they need more help from the ACR. Respondents identified point of care ultrasound as the area in which they need the most help. Most respondents gave positive or neutral answers regarding their role in the management of radiology allied health professionals and radiology information technology, and most believed their role and influence in decision making in the organization were not decreasing.

Radiologic discrepancies in children with special healthcare needs in a pediatric emergency department.

BACKGROUND: After-hours radiologic interpretation by nonradiology attendings or resident radiologists introduces the risk of discrepancies. Clinical outcomes following radiologic discrepancies among pediatric emergency department (ED) patients are poorly described. In particular, children with special healthcare needs (CSHCN), have more opportunities for discrepancies and potential consequences than non- CSHCN. Our objective was to determine the rates and types of radiologic discrepancies, and to compare CSHCN to non-CSHCN. METHODS: From July 2014 to February 2015, all children who underwent a diagnostic imaging study at a free-standing children's ED were included. Data collected included radiologic studies - type and location - and clinical details - chief complaint and CSHCN type. Differences between preliminary reads and final pediatric radiology attending reads were defined as discrepancies, and categorized by clinical significance. Descriptive statistics, z-tests, and chi-square were used. RESULTS: Over 8months, 8310 visits (7462 unique patients) had radiologic studies (2620 CSHCN, 5690 non-CSHCN). A total of 198 (2.4%) radiologic discrepancies [56 (28.3%) CSHCN, 142 (71.7%) non-CSHCN] were found. Chief complaints for CSCHN were more often within the cardiac, pulmonary and neurologic systems (p<0.001 for each), whereas non-CSHCN presented with more trauma (p<0.001). The rates of discrepancies (CSHCN 2.1%, non- CSHCN 2.5%, p=0.3) and severity of clinical consequences (p=0.6) were not significantly different between CSHCN and non-CSHCN. CONCLUSION: Though the frequency and type of radiologic studies performed between CSHCN and non-CSHCN were different, we found no significant difference in the rate of radiologic discrepancies or the rate of clinically significant radiologic discrepancies.

Influences for Gender Disparity in Academic Neuroradiology.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: There has been extensive interest in promoting gender equality within radiology, a predominately male field. In this study, our aim was to quantify gender representation in neuroradiology faculty rankings and determine any related factors that may contribute to any such disparity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated the academic and administrative faculty members of neuroradiology divisions for all on-line listed programs in the US and Canada. After excluding programs that did not fulfill our selection criteria, we generated a short list of 85 US and 8 Canadian programs. We found 465 faculty members who met the inclusion criteria for our study. We used Elsevier's SCOPUS for gathering the data pertaining to the publications, H-index, citations, and tenure of the productivity of each faculty member. RESULTS: Gender disparity was insignificant when analyzing academic ranks. There are more men working in neuroimaging relative to women (χ2 = 0.46; P = .79). However, gender disparity was highly significant for leadership positions in neuroradiology (χ2 = 6.76; P = .009). The median H-index was higher among male faculty members (17.5) versus female faculty members (9). Female faculty members have odds of 0.84 compared with male faculty members of having a higher H-index, adjusting for publications, citations, academic ranks, leadership ranks, and interaction between gender and publications and gender and citations (9). CONCLUSIONS: Neuroradiology faculty members follow the same male predominance seen in many other specialties of medicine. In this study, issues such as mentoring, role models, opportunities to engage in leadership/research activities, funding opportunities, and mindfulness regarding research productivity are explored.

Physician Specialty and Radiologist Characteristics Associated with Higher Medicare Patient Complexity.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Meaningfully measuring physician outcomes and resource utilization requires appropriate patient risk adjustment. We aimed to assess Medicare patient complexity by physician specialty and to further identify radiologist characteristics associated with higher patient complexity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The average beneficiary Hierarchical Condition Category (HCC) risk scores (Medicare's preferred measure of clinical complexity) were identified for all physicians using 2014 Medicare claims data. HCC scores were compared among physician specialties and further stratified for radiologists based on a range of characteristics. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed. RESULTS: Of 549,194 physicians across 54 specialties, the mean HCC risk score was 1.62 ± 0.75. Of the 54 specialties, interventional radiology ranked 4th (2.60 ± 1.29), nuclear medicine ranked 16th (1.87 ± 0.45), and diagnostic radiology ranked 21st (1.75 ± 0.61). Among 31,175 radiologists, risk scores were higher (P < 0.001) for those with teaching (2.03 ± 0.74) vs nonteaching affiliations (1.72 ± 0.61), practice size ≥100 (1.94 ± 0.70) vs ≤9 (1.59 ± 0.79) members, urban (1.79 ± 0.69) vs rural (1.67 ± 0.59) practices, and subspecialized (1.85 ± 0.81) vs generalized (1.68 ± 0.42) practice patterns. Among noninterventional radiology subspecialties, patient complexity was highest for cardiothoracic (2.09 ± 0.57) and lowest for breast (1.08 ± 0.32) imagers. At multivariable analysis, a teaching affiliation was the strongest independent predictor of patient complexity for both interventional (ß = +0.23, P = 0.005) and noninterventional radiologists (ß = +0.21, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Radiologists on average serve more clinically complex Medicare patients than most physicians nationally. However, patient complexity varies considerably among radiologists and is particularly high for those with teaching affiliations and interventional radiologists. With patient complexity increasingly recognized as a central predictor of clinical outcomes and resource utilization, ongoing insights into complexity measures may assist radiologists navigating emerging risk-based payment models.

Effects of access to radiology in out-of-hours primary care in the Netherlands: a prospective observational study.

Background: In the Netherlands, out-of-hours primary care is provided in general-practitioner-cooperatives (GPCs). These are increasingly located on site with emergency departments (ED), forming Emergency-Care-Access-Points (ECAP). A more efficient and economical organization of out-of-hours primary emergency care could be realized by increased collaboration at an ECAP. In this study, we compared the effects of different models with respect to access to (hospital) radiology by the GPC. We investigated patient and care characteristics, indication for diagnostics and outcomes at GPCs with and without access to radiology. Methods: A prospective observational record review study of patients referred for conventional radiology for trauma by one of five GPCs in the period April 2014-October 2015, covering three organizational models. Results: The mean age was 31 years and 56% was female. Extremities were predominately involved (91%). There was a medical indication for radiology in 85% and the assessed risk by requesting GPs on abnormalities was high in 66%. There was a significant difference in outcomes between models. Radiological abnormalities (fractures/luxations) were present in 51% without direct access and in 35% with partial and unlimited access. Overall, 61% of the included patients were referred to the ED; 100% in the models without access and 38% in the models with (partial) access. Conclusions: GPC access to radiology is beneficial for patients and professionals. The diagnostics were adequately used. With access to radiology, unnecessary referrals and specialist care are prevented. This may lead to a decrease in ED attendance and overcrowding.