ACR CT Accreditation Program and the Lung Cancer Screening Program Designation.

The ACR recognizes that low-dose CT for lung cancer screening has the potential to significantly reduce mortality from lung cancer in the appropriate high-risk population. The ACR supports the recommendations of the US Preventive Services Task Force and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network for screening patients. To be effective, lung cancer screening should be performed at sites providing high-quality low-dose CT examinations overseen and interpreted by qualified physicians using a structured reporting and management system. The ACR has developed a set of tools necessary for radiologists to take the lead on the front lines of lung cancer screening. The ACR Lung Cancer Screening Center designation is built upon the ACR CT accreditation program and requires use of Lung-RADS or a similar structured reporting and management system. This designation provides patients and referring providers with the assurance that they will receive high-quality screening with appropriate follow-up care.

Radiologist Hiring Preferences Based on Practice Needs.

BACKGROUND: The ACR Commission on Human Resources and Commission on General, Small and Rural Practice collaborated on developing a question regarding hiring preferences to include in the annual Commission on Human Resources Workforce Survey in order to understand hiring preferences. METHODS: Group leads were asked to rank five types of prospective radiologists from most desirable to least desirable for hire on the basis of the needs of their practices: single-specialty radiologists, focusing on only one subspecialty; single-specialty radiologists with general capabilities; multispecialty radiologists; general radiologists; and radiologists who did two fellowships in the same specialty. RESULTS: The most desired hiring preference was for a single-specialty radiologist with general capabilities. Sixty-eight percent of the practice leaders identified a single-specialty radiologist with general capabilities as the most desirable type of individual to hire, compared with 21% who chose multispecialty radiologists, 13% who chose single-specialty radiologists and general radiologists, and 5% who expressed a preference for radiologists who did two fellowships in the same specialty. CONCLUSIONS: The most desirable candidates for hire appear to be those who are fellowship trained as subspecialists but who are also capable of reading in other clinical areas or modalities. This preference is true for most private practices, multispecialty practices, and hospital-owned practices. In contrast to those practices, chairs and leaders of academic medical center practices prefer to hire single-specialty radiologists slightly more than single-specialty radiologists with general capabilities.

ACR CT accreditation program and the lung cancer screening program designation.

The ACR recognizes that low-dose CT for lung cancer screening has the potential to significantly reduce mortality from lung cancer in the appropriate high-risk population. The ACR supports the recommendations of the US Preventive Services Task Force and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network for screening patients. To be effective, lung cancer screening should be performed at sites providing high-quality low-dose CT examinations overseen and interpreted by qualified physicians using a structured reporting and management system. The ACR has developed a set of tools necessary for radiologists to take the lead on the front lines of lung cancer screening. The ACR Lung Cancer Screening Center designation is built upon the ACR CT accreditation program and requires use of Lung-RADS or a similar structured reporting and management system. This designation provides patients and referring providers with the assurance that they will receive high-quality screening with appropriate follow-up care.

Actionable findings and the role of IT support: report of the ACR Actionable Reporting Work Group.

The ACR formed the Actionable Reporting Work Group to address the potential role of IT in the communication of imaging findings, especially in cases that require nonroutine communication because of the urgency of the findings or their unexpected nature. These findings that require special communication with referring clinicians are classified as "actionable findings." The work group defines 3 categories of actionable findings that require, respectively, communication and clinical decision within minutes (category 1), hours (category 2), or days (category 3). Although the work group does not believe that there can be definitive lists of such findings, it developed lists in each category that would apply in most general hospital settings. For each category, the work group discusses ways in which IT can assist interpreting radiologists in successfully communicating to the relevant clinicians to ensure optimal patient care. IT systems can also help document the communication and facilitate auditing of the documentation. The work group recommends that vendors develop platforms that can be customized on the basis of local preferences and needs. Whatever system is used, it should be highly reliable and fit seamlessly into radiologists' workflow.

ACR white paper on teleradiology practice: a report from the Task Force on Teleradiology Practice.

Teleradiology services are now embedded into the workflow of many radiology practices in the United States, driven largely by an expanding corporate model of services. This has brought opportunities and challenges to both providers and recipients of teleradiology services and has heightened the need to create best-practice guidelines for teleradiology to ensure patient primacy. To this end, the ACR Task Force on Teleradiology Practice has created this white paper to update the prior ACR communication on teleradiology and discuss the current and possible future state of teleradiology in the United States. This white paper proposes comprehensive best-practice guidelines for the practice of teleradiology, with recommendations offered regarding future actions.

ACR white paper: the value added that radiologists provide to the health care enterprise.

Radiologists represent arguably one of medicine's least heralded but most important specialties. Although they carry sterling credentials as imaging and radiation safety experts, radiologists have lacked widespread public recognition. As public and private stakeholders cast an even more intense spotlight on imaging, the vital role of radiologists must be better understood. During the January 2008 ACR Forum on Future Practice Models for Radiology, participants and ACR leaders discussed the value added that radiologists bring to the health care enterprise and recommended that the ACR further study that topic. The ACR, dedicated to providing quality patient care since its inception in 1924, convened the Task Force on Value Added to address these issues. The task force determined the component stakeholders in the health care enterprise to whom value is added, defined the nature of the value for each constituent component, described the process of adding that value, and anticipated future trends that may affect the value proposition. Recommendations to the ACR for future action are offered.

Beating them or joining them: your radiology group's path to the future.

Radiologists and hospital and health system (HHS) administrators and trustees are facing significant threats and opportunities in the rapidly changing health care environment. Although multiple response alternatives exist for both groups, some of the options seem more likely than others to lead to long-term success. The choices available range from cooperation to competition, from bargaining to blaming, from offering hope to providing criticism, from standing together to standing apart, and from focusing on beating them to investing in joining them for the benefit of all. Many physicians and HHS administrators and trustees acknowledge that their relationship with each other is central to their long-term success, as well as the interests of patients and their communities. This article discusses the major forces for change faced by radiologists and HHS administrators and trustees. It examines the collaborative and competitive responses available to each, provides a review of the typical consequences of these responses, and identifies the assumptions underlying the major alternatives.