Women in leadership matters: Achieving diversity in radiology residency recruitment.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To assess whether academic radiology departments and residency programs with efforts toward supporting and augmenting Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) are associated with a higher proportion of residents from diverse backgrounds. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Program Directors within the Radiology Residency Education Research Alliance were surveyed to gather information about program characteristics, incorporation of diversity in resident recruitment, the sponsoring department's commitment to efforts at expanding diversity, and a summary of their current and past residents, staff and faculty members (academic years 2020 and 2023) with respect to a list of diversity characteristics. RESULTS: Survey response rate was 51 %. Sixty-three percent (15/24) of participating programs have departmental committees dedicated to DEI work; 46 % (11/24) of programs' departments have a Vice Chair for DEI. Sixty percent (15/24) of programs use their social media accounts to advertise their DEI programming efforts. Ninety-six percent (23/24) of programs participating in the survey use diversity factors to select candidates for their program. Women Leadership was associated with above-median diversity of residents and faculty. CONCLUSION: This study of radiology residency programs encourages a more prominent role for women in leadership positions within academic radiology departments to drive diversity and inclusion efforts.

Maintenance of Certification in Radiology: Eliciting Radiologist Preferences Using a Discrete Choice Experiment.

OBJECTIVE: To quantitatively assess radiologists' preferences for Maintenance of Certification (MOC) and Continuing Certification (CC) using a survey of attitudes and perceptions. METHODS: A questionnaire that assessed attitudes and perceptions and included a discrete choice or trade-off task was developed by ACR staff in conjunction with an independent market research agency and the Survey Subcommittee of the ACR Task Force on Certification in Radiology. The trade-off exercise was integrated into this methodology to better understand the underlying utilities or preferences of the components of MOC-CC among respondents and to better enable specific recommendations on how to optimize the current program. The survey was administered via e-mail to 17,305 ACR members. The demographic and practice characteristics of the 1,994 (11.5%) respondents were similar to the ACR radiologist membership and correspond to a normal distribution. At a 95% confidence level, with a margin of error 2.1%, we believe that the respondent population fairly reflects the actual population. RESULTS: Similar proportions judged the existing program as excellent or very good (36%), or fair or poor (35%), with 27% neutral. MOC-CC was perceived more often as excellent or very good by those who were grandfathered yet still participating in MOC, were in academic practice, were in an urban setting, were older, or had a role with the ABR. In contrast, MOC-CC was more often judged as fair or poor by those who were not grandfathered, were in private practice, were in a rural setting, or were younger. The current MOC-CC program is not well regarded by diplomates, with few showing preference or acceptability. The program's reception is most sensitive to the following attributes: absence or presence of a practice quality improvement requirement, Online Longitudinal Assessment content including or excluding general radiology in addition to one's specialty and inclusion or exclusion of self-assessment as part of the CME. CONCLUSION: ACR members diverged in their attitudes toward MOC, with differences among specific demographic and practice characteristics. The current package of features of MOC-CC was widely viewed as unsatisfactory, and a more optimal feature set arose from a simulation exercise.

For the Birds: Radiology Parallels, Finding Wellness, and Lessons Learned in Birding.

The popularity of birding has grown substantially during the COVID-19 pandemic. As an activity that can be performed year-round with social distancing in virtually any location, birding shares a striking resemblance to the practice of radiology - so much so that we feel it represents a unique wellness activity that may greatly appeal to radiologists. In this paper, we describe commonalities between birding and radiology, hopefully inspiring readers to get outdoors and commune with nature in this restorative wellness activity.

Should Radiology Residency Interviews Remain Virtual? Results of a Multi-institutional Survey Inform the Debate.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The recent completion of the inaugural virtual interview season has triggered calls for the permanency of virtual interviews in the radiology resident selection process. We designed a study to assess the inaugural 2020-2021 virtual interview season and inform the anticipated debate on the future of radiology residency interviews. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-four and 39-question survey instruments developed for program directors (PDs) and applicants, respectively, were distributed through the Radiology Residency Education Research Alliance to measure the demographics, experiences with technology, attitudes toward the virtual interview season and attitudes about proposed changes to the interview process. Comparisons were made between demographics and survey queries. RESULTS: PD and applicant response rates were 74% (25/34) and 45% (84/186), respectively. Eighty percent (20/25) of PDs and 76% (64/84) of applicants described the virtual interview season as excellent or very good. Sixty percent of PDs agreed or strongly agreed with the statement "The benefits of the virtual interview season outweighed the drawbacks," while 24% disagreed or strongly disagreed, and 16% were neutral. Among applicants, 80% agreed or strongly agreed, 10% disagreed or strongly disagreed, and 10% were neutral toward the same statement. Ninety-two percent of PDs noted that their rank order list performed the same or better than in years prior. Both PDs and applicants identified applicant equity and wellness as major benefits of virtual interviews, while identifying over-application and interview hoarding as significant detriments. CONCLUSION: The virtual interview provides an adequate substitute for the conventional in-person residency interview, with real and perceived benefits to applicant wellness, equity, and financial well-being. The downsides of virtual interviews, namely over-application and interview hoarding, have workable solutions.

Pediatric Program Directors Should Have an Active Presence on Twitter.

For academic pediatricians, social media has become an important avenue for professional development through continuing education, professional networking, and academic collaboration. Pediatric residency program directors have recognized additional benefits of social media engagement via program promotion and resident recruitment. The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and subsequent move to virtual interviews for the 2020-2021 residency interview season have created a new urgency for pediatric program directors to establish an active social media presence, primarily as a means to engage applicants and provide them with information in lieu of cancelled away rotations and in-person interviews. Twitter is a free microblogging and social networking platform that allows real-time engagement among academic pediatricians. Here, we make the case that all pediatric program directors should have an active presence on Twitter.

USMLE Step 3 Scores Have Value in Predicting ABR Core Examination Outcome and Performance: A Multi-institutional Study.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: We analyzed multi-institutional data to determine if Step 3 performance tiers can identify radiology residents with increased risk of Core examination failure and submean performance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We collected Step 3 scores (USMLE Step 3 or COMLEX Level 3) and American Board of Radiology (ABR) Core examination outcomes and scores for anonymized residents from 13 different Diagnostic Radiology residency programs taking the ABR Core examination between 2013 and 2019. Step 3 scores were converted to percentiles based on Z-score, with Core outcome and performance analyzed for Step 3 groups based on 50th percentile and based on quintiles. Core outcome was scored as fail when conditionally passed or failed. Core performance was measured by the percent of residents with scores below the mean. Differences between Step 3 groups for Core outcome and Core performance were statistically evaluated. RESULTS: Data were available for 342 residents. The Core examination failure rate for 121 residents with Step 3 scores <50th percentile was 19.8% (fail relative risk = 2.26), significantly higher than the 2.7% failure rate for the 221 other residents. Of 42 residents with Step 3 scores in the lowest quintile, the Core failure rate increased to 31.0% (fail relative risk = 3.52). Core performance improved with higher Step 3 quintiles. CONCLUSION: Step 3 licensing scores have value in predicting radiology resident performance on the ABR Core examination, enabling residency programs to target higher risk residents for early assessment and intervention.

The Relationship Between ACR Diagnostic Radiology In-Training Examination Scores and ABR Core Examination Outcome and Performance: A Multi-Institutional Study.

PURPOSE: We analyzed multi-institutional data to understand the relationship of ACR Diagnostic Radiology In-Training Examination (DXIT) scores to ABR Core examination performance. METHODS: We collected DXIT rank scores and ABR Core examination outcomes and scores for anonymized residents from 12 different diagnostic radiology residency programs taking the ABR Core examination between 2013 and 2019. DXIT scores were grouped into quintiles based on rank score for residency year 1 (R1), residency year 2 (R2), and residency year 3 (R3) residents. Core outcome was scored as fail when conditionally passed or failed. Core performance was grouped using SD from the mean and measured by the percent of residents with scores below the mean. Differences between DXIT score quintiles for Core outcome and Core performance were statistically evaluated. RESULTS: DXIT and Core outcome data were available for 446 residents. The Core examination failure rate for the lowest quintile R1, R2, and R3 DXIT scores was 20.3%, 34.2%, and 38.0%, respectively. Core performance improved with higher R3 DXIT quintiles. Only 2 of 229 residents with R3 DXIT score ≥ 50th percentile failed the Core examination, with both failing residents having R2 DXIT scores in the lowest quintile. CONCLUSIONS: DXIT scores are useful evaluation metrics to identify a subgroup of residents at significantly higher risk for Core examination failure and another subgroup of residents at significantly lower risk for Core examination failure, with increasing predictive power with advancing residency year. These scores enable identification of approximately one-half of R3 residents whose risk of Core examination failure is negligible.

COVID-19 Impact on Well-Being and Education in Radiology Residencies: A Survey of the Association of Program Directors in Radiology.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic has forced rapid evolution of the healthcare environment. Efforts to mitigate the spread of the virus through social distancing and shelter-at-home edicts have unintended consequences upon clinical and educational missions and mental well-being of radiology departments. We sought to understand the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on radiology residencies with respect to the educational mission and perceptions of impact on well-being. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was IRB exempt. An anonymous 22 question survey regarding the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on educational and clinical missions of residencies, its perceived impact upon morale of radiologists and trainees and a query of innovative solutions devised in response, was emailed to the Association of Program Directors in Radiology membership. Survey data were collected using SurveyMonkey (San Mateo, California). RESULTS: Respondents felt the COVID-19 pandemic has negatively impacted their residency programs. Regarding the educational mission impact, 70.1% (75/107) report moderate/marked negative impact and 2.8% (3/107) that educational activities have ceased. Regarding the pandemic's impact on resident morale, 44.8% (48/107) perceive moderate/marked negative effect; perceived resident morale in programs with redeployment is significantly worse with 57.1% (12/21) reporting moderate/marked decrease. Respondents overwhelmingly report adequate resident access to mental health resources during the acute phase of the pandemic (88.8%, 95/107). Regarding morale of program directors, 61% (65/106) report either mild or marked decreased morale. Program innovations reported by program directors were catalogued and shared. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic has markedly impacted the perceived well-being and educational missions of radiology residency programs across the United States.

An Institutional Academic and Research Track Curriculum for Radiology Residents: Development, Implementation, and Outcomes Assessment at 6 Years.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: We report the creation of a voluntary research development curriculum for radiology residents at our institution, detailing outcomes after 6 years of existence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We developed a comprehensive Academic and Research Track (ART) curriculum for radiology residents in our department, including mentorship, monthly meetings, didactic curriculum, ongoing evaluation/feedback, protected academic time, and financial support. A literature review identified all indexed publications for our residency graduates from 6 years pre- (2007-2012) to 6 years post-ART (2013-2018) intervention. We also documented career outcomes (academic versus private practice). Summary statistics, Chi-square, and Poisson regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: ART group demonstrated significantly greater publication likelihood versus pre-ART predecessors (odds ratio [OR]: 3.59, 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 1.40-9.19; risk ratios [RR]: 1.58, 95% CI: 1.19-2.11; p= 0.01), contemporaneous non-ART cohort (OR: 3.03, 95% CI: 1.12-8.33; RR: 1.45, 95% CI: 1.08-1.96; p = 0.04), and combined pre-ART plus non-ART group (OR: 3.34, 95% CI: 1.35-8.22; RR: 1.41, 95% CI: 0.87-2.29; p = 0.012). In Poisson regression, ART was a significant factor for total, first author, and senior author publications among all graduates and among the subset which remained in academics (all p-values < 0.05). Estimators were positive in all regressions, indicating a positive effect of ART for increasing numbers of publications. CONCLUSION: ART membership was associated with significantly increased indexed publications. A greater proportion of ART members remained in academics compared to non-ART members, but did not reach statistical significance. We detail our ART structure and curriculum, which may be used as a malleable template for other radiology departments.