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.

Results of the 2020 Survey of the American Alliance of Academic Chief Residents in Radiology.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: An annual survey of chief residents in accredited North American radiology programs is conducted by the American Alliance of Academic Chief Residents in Radiology (A3CR2). The purpose of this study is to summarize the 2020 A3CR2 chief resident survey. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An online survey was distributed to chief residents from 194 Accreditation Council on Graduate Medical Education-accredited radiology residencies. Questions were designed to gather information about residency program practices, benefits, fellowship or advanced interventional radiology (IR) training choices, and the integration of IR training. Subsets of questions focused on the perception of corporatization, non-physician providers (NPPs), and artificial intelligence (AI) in radiology and their relationship to the radiology job market. RESULTS: 174 individual responses from 94 programs were provided, yielding a 48 % program response rate. Extended emergency department coverage has steadily decreased over the last 5 years (2016-2020), however only 52 % of programs have independent overnight call (without attending coverage). Regarding the impact of new integrated IR residencies on training, 42 % indicated there was no appreciable impact on their DR or IR training, while 20 % indicated DR training for IR residents suffered and 19 % indicated IR training for DR residents suffered. Corporatization in radiology was perceived as the biggest potential threat to the future job market. CONCLUSIONS: Integration of IR residency did not detrimentally affect DR or IR training in most programs. Radiology resident perception of corporatization, NPPs, and AI may help residency programs shape educational content.

Results of the 2021-2022 Survey of the American Alliance of Academic Chief Residents in Radiology.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: An annual survey of chief residents in accredited North American radiology programs is conducted by the American Alliance of Academic Chief Residents in Radiology (A3CR2). Special topics surveyed for the 2021-2022 academic year were procedural competency and virtual radiology education in the COVID-19 pandemic. The purpose of this study is to summarize the 2021-2022 A3CR2 chief resident survey. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An online survey was distributed to chief residents from 197 Accreditation Council on Graduate Medical Education-accredited radiology residency programs. Chief residents responded to questions regarding their individual procedural readiness and attitudes on virtual radiology education. A single chief resident from each residency answered programmatic questions including the use of virtual education, faculty coverage, and fellowship choices among their graduating classes. RESULTS: We received 110 individual responses from 61 programs, yielding a 31% program response rate. Although the majority (80%) of programs maintained purely in-person attending readout throughout the COVID 19 pandemic, only 13% of programs reported purely in-person didactics and 26% converted to all virtual didactics. The majority (53%-74%) of chief residents perceived virtual learning (in read-out, case conference, and didactic formats) to be less effective than in-person learning. One third of chief residents reported decreased procedural exposure during the pandemic, and 7%-9% of chief residents felt uncomfortable with basic procedures (basic fluoroscopy examinations, basic aspiration/drainage procedures, and superficial biopsy procedures). The number of programs with 24/7 attending coverage increased from 35% in 2019 to 49% in 2022. Body, neuroradiology, and interventional radiology were the most popular advanced training options among graduating radiology residents. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic had a profound impact on radiology training, particularly in terms of virtual learning. These survey results suggest that although digital learning offers increased flexibility, most residents still prefer in-person readout and didactics. Despite this, virtual learning will likely remain a viable option as programs continue to evolve following the pandemic.

Results of the 2019 Survey of the American Alliance of Academic Chief Residents in Radiology.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: An annual survey of chief residents in accredited North American radiology programs is conducted by the American Alliance of Academic Chief Residents in Radiology (A3CR2). The purpose of this study is to summarize the 2019 A3CR2 chief resident survey. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An online survey was distributed to chief residents from 194 Accreditation Council on Graduate Medical Education-accredited radiology residencies. Questions were designed to gather information about residency program details, call and weekend coverage, interventional radiology training, fellowship, social media use, healthcare reform, artificial intelligence, and job market status. RESULTS: One hundred and forty-two unique responses from 99 programs were provided, yielding a 51% program response rate. There was a mean of 7.3 women per residency with a mean program size of 28 residents (26% women). Only 3 of the 99 (3%) programs had a proportion of women that was 50% or higher. The proportion of women in radiology residencies is unchanged since 2014 (p= 0.93) and is significantly lower than 2019 graduating women medical students (49.3%; p < 0.001). Thirty-five percent of programs had 24/7 attending coverage and 40% of programs had extended hours attending shifts. Of programs without 24/7 attending coverage, the proportion of programs without face-to-face readout has increased from 34% in 2014 to 55% in 2019 (p = 0.015). The majority (67%) of respondents had no concerns about the radiology job market; compared to 2014, where only 4% had no concerns (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Women remain underrepresented in radiology, face-to-face readout is decreasing, and there has been a shift towards a positive job market outlook.

"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.

A Snapshot of Radiology Training During the Early COVID-19 Pandemic.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic transformed the personal and professional lives of radiology trainees. The purpose of this study was to broadly summarize the impact of COVID-19 on radiology trainees and their training programs via data collected during the early pandemic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An online survey was distributed to radiology chief residents in residencies throughout North America with responses collected between March 20th, 2020 and May 15th, 2020, which coincided with the development of initial COVID-19 peaks in North America. A subset of COVID-19 pandemic questions included resident wellness, imaging opinions, residency infrastructure change, and opinions regarding the Core Exam delay. RESULTS: One hundred forty chief residents from 86 institutions responded to COVID-19-related questions. Nearly all responding programs (99%; 85/86) reported institutional positive cases of COVID-19. Most residents (94%; 132/140) thought laboratory testing provided more value than imaging. Fifty-seven percent of respondents (80/140) would use COVID-19-related terminology when encountering chest CT findings supportive of viral pneumonia in symptomatic patients. There was little reported change in the number of residents on call (no change reported in >80% of programs). Fifty-nine percent of residents (83/140) reported increased stress related to the COVID-19 pandemic. The majority of programs (93%) had fewer residents on service (80/86 responding programs). CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 dramatically affected radiology residencies during the early pandemic period. As we enter future phases of the COVID-19 pandemic, careful thought should also be given to rebuilding the radiology resident experience.

Results of the 2015 Survey of the American Alliance of Academic Chief Residents in Radiology.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The American Alliance of Academic Chief Residents in Radiology conducts an annual survey of chief residents in Diagnostic Radiology programs in North America. The survey serves as a resource for observing trends and disseminating ideas among radiology training programs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An online survey was distributed to chief residents at 181 residency programs, with questions on a broad range of topics including resident benefits, program and call structure, American Board of Radiology Core exam preparation, fellowships, and the job market. RESULTS: A total of 193 individual responses were received from 120 programs, for a response rate of 66%. The responses were compared to data from prior years' surveys, principally from 2012 to 2014. CONCLUSIONS: Programs are shifting resident benefits spending toward Core exam preparation resources and away from lead aprons. In addition, 24-hour attending coverage continues to spread among programs, and the fraction of programs providing face-to-face postcall readouts continues to decline. Finally, although resident perception of the job market is now improving, residents feel that the job market continues to discourage medical students from entering radiology, a fact borne out by the 2015 match results. How the upcoming change to a direct interventional radiology residency will affect medical student interest is as yet uncertain.