Key Factors to Attract More U.S. Diagnostic Radiology Residents into the Field of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging: A National Survey.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To understand the current state of radiology residents' exposure to nuclear medicine and molecular imaging (NM/MI), determine key factors that may attract more trainees into the field, and identify differentiating aspects between those specializing in NM/MI and those who are not. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An anonymous web-based survey was sent to contacts at all diagnostic radiology residency programs in the United States for dissemination to their residents, collecting information about trainees' NM/MI exposure during residency and factors that may attract them to NM/MI. RESULTS: A total of 198 trainees responded to the survey, 34 of whom plan on pursuing a career in NM/MI. Most trainees reported early exposure to NM/MI during residency; most (97.4%) reported ample exposure to general NM/MI and oncologic studies. Less than 3% of trainees reported adequate exposure to therapies, neurological applications, molecular imaging/research advances, and physics. Respondents reported a need for better quality education (38.9%) and exposure to mentors (28.8%) as ways to attract trainees to NM/MI. Routinely encountered clinical pathology was the most interesting for those specializing in NM/MI (29.4%), whereas lifestyle was the most attractive aspect of NM/MI for those not pursuing a career in the field (27.4%). NM/MI-associated research was the least attractive for those specializing in NM/MI (35.3%), while job market concerns was the least attractive aspect for those not specializing in NM/MI (37.2%). Trainees planning to specialize in NM/MI reported higher satisfaction with their orientation to NM/MI during their first clinical rotation compared to those who do not plan to specialize in the field (3.03/5.00 and 2.67/5.00, respectively, p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: This survey highlights several factors that training programs and national societies can target to improve interest in NM/MI among radiology residents. We found that optimized education initiatives, including improved orientation to the field, increased mentoring, and career opportunities are essential levers for recruiting radiology trainees into the NM/MI workforce.

Affecting Change: Enhancing Feedback Interactions with Radiology Trainees.

Feedback is a critical part of the learning process and is a valuable tool to empower adult learners. Modern feedback theory places the learner at the center of the feedback encounter. Individual and institutional barriers to effective giving and receiving of feedback can be overcome through education and attention to the form and content of feedback. We review the elements of effective feedback and address issues of framing, environmental, and social factors which aid in providing psychological safety and trust, as necessary elements to create a culture of feedback in radiology training programs. We provide practical strategies to empower learners with the necessary skills to solicit, receive, and reflect on feedback.

Factors Influential in the Selection of Radiology Residents in the Post-Step 1 World: A Discrete Choice Experiment.

OBJECTIVES: Reporting of United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 results will transition from a numerical score to a pass or fail result. We sought an objective analysis to determine changes in the relative importance of resident application attributes when numerical Step 1 results are replaced. METHODS: A discrete choice experiment was designed to model radiology resident selection and determine the relative weights of various application factors when paired with a numerical or pass or fail Step 1 result. Faculty involved in resident selection at 14 US radiology programs chose between hypothetical pairs of applicant profiles between August and November 2020. A conditional logistic regression model assessed the relative weights of the attributes, and odds ratios (ORs) were calculated. RESULTS: There were 212 participants. When a numerical Step 1 score was provided, the most influential attributes were medical school (OR: 2.35, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.07-2.67), Black or Hispanic race or ethnicity (OR: 2.04, 95% CI: 1.79-2.38), and Step 1 score (OR: 1.8, 95% CI: 1.69-1.95). When Step 1 was reported as pass, the applicant's medical school grew in influence (OR: 2.78, 95% CI: 2.42-3.18), and there was a significant increase in influence of Step 2 scores (OR: 1.31, 95% CI: 1.23-1.40 versus OR 1.57, 95% CI: 1.46-1.69). There was little change in the relative influence of race or ethnicity, gender, class rank, or clerkship honors. DISCUSSION: When Step 1 reporting transitions to pass or fail, medical school prestige gains outsized influence and Step 2 scores partly fill the gap left by Step 1 examination as a single metric of decisive importance in application decisions.

Practical Tips for Creating a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Committee: Experience From a Multicenter, Academic Radiology Department.

PURPOSE: Coronavirus disease 2019 and the publicly documented deaths of countless Black individuals have highlighted the need to confront systemic racism, address racial/ethnic disparities, and improve diversity and inclusion in radiology. Several radiology departments have begun to create diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) committees to systematically address DEI issues in radiology. However, there are few articles that provide departments with guidance on how to create DEI committees to comprehensively address DEI issues in radiology. The purpose of this review is to provide readers with a framework and practical tips for creating a comprehensive, institutionally aligned radiology DEI committee. METHODS: The authors describe key components of the strategic planning process and lessons learned in the creation of a radiology DEI committee, on the basis of the experience of an integrated, academic northeastern radiology department. RESULTS: A hospital-based strategic planning process defining the DEI vision, mission, goals, and strategies was used to inform the formation of the radiology department DEI committee. The radiology department performed gap analyses by conducting internal and external research. Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats analyses were performed on the basis of consultations with institutional and other departmental DEI leaders as well as DEI leaders from other academic medical centers. This framework served as the basis for the creation of the radiology departmental DEI committee, including a steering committee and four task forces (education, research, patient experience, and workforce development), each charged with addressing specific institutional goals and strategies. CONCLUSIONS: This review provides academic radiology departments with a blueprint to create a comprehensive, institutionally aligned radiology DEI committee.

Utilization of a Virtual Information Session to Increase Engagement With Prospective Applicants in the Setting of COVID-19.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to assess the efficacy of a virtual information session hosted by a diagnostic radiology residency program at addressing applicant concerns about the 2020-2021 interview cycle and highlighting key aspects of the residency program. METHODS: Participants were recruited to attend the virtual information session over a 2-week period via social media and communication with medical school radiology interest groups. Attendees were able to submit questions or topics of interest prior to the session. The virtual information session was hosted by trainees and faculty from a radiology residency. Data regarding the demographics of the attendees and the efficacy of the session were obtained through interactive live polling during the virtual session and a voluntary anonymous postsession survey. RESULTS: A total of 171 attendees participated in the virtual information session. Of the attendees, 42% learned about the session from Twitter and 72% were fourth-year medical students applying for residency. Among topics addressed during the session, attendees indicated that they were most interested in learning about "Application strategies during COVID-19" during an in-session poll. On the post-session survey, 96% of attendees reported being more knowledgeable about the residency program culture and the breadth of research and educational opportunities. CONCLUSION: Given the virtual nature of the 2020-2021 residency application cycle, utilization of web-based platforms for recruitment will be essential. Virtual information sessions can be effective at providing insight into aspects of a residency program that are typically gained during the in-person interview experience.

Diagnostic Radiology Resident Recruitment Part I: Advice to Programs (and Program Directors) From Vice Chairs for Education.

To the best of our knowledge, there is little available organized advice for diagnostic radiology residency program directors and their programs regarding resident recruitment. We are a group of current and former program directors who are current vice chairs for education and continue to advise and to mentor many educators. We have constructed this article along the yearly schedule of trainee recruitment, including an application review, interviews, and troublesome trends that we have observed.

Diagnostic Radiology Resident Recruitment Part II: Advice to Applicants From Vice Chairs for Education.

Applicants to diagnostic radiology residencies often obtain advice regarding the process, typically from local individuals. Materials available on the Internet contribute to this process as well. We are a group of current and former Diagnostic Radiology Residency Program Directors and current Vice Chairs for Education who commonly advise medical students, including regarding radiology as a career. This work is meant to provide a "plain talk" resource for those considering a career in radiology via a radiology residency, written from the point of view of an advisor with lots of experience.

Bedside Chest Radiographs in the Intensive care Setting: Wireless Direct Radiography Compared to Computed Radiography.

OBJECTIVES: To compare image quality, visibility of anatomic landmarks, tubes and lines, and other clinically significant findings on portable (bedside) chest radiographs acquired with wireless direct radiography (DRw) and computed radiography (CR). METHODS: In a prospective IRB-approved and HIPAA-compliant study, portable DRw (DRX-1C mobile retrofit portable wireless direct radiography, CareStream Inc., Rochester, NY) and portable CR (AGFA CR (DXG) version; NIM2103, AGFA Healthcare, Ridgefield Park, NJ) images of the chest were acquired within 24-hours in 80 patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). Image pairs of 75 patients (37% female) with a mean age of 60.7±16 years were independently compared side-by-side by 7 experienced thoracic radiologists using a five-point scale. When tubes and lines were present, the radiologist also compared an edge-enhanced copy of the DRw image to the CR image. RESULTS: Most radiologists found significantly fewer artifacts on DRw images compared to CR images and all readers agreed that when present, these artifacts did not significantly preclude the ability to evaluate anatomic landmarks, tubes and lines, or clinically significant findings. None of the radiologists (0/7) reported superior visibility of anatomic structures on CR images compared to DRw images and some radiologists (3/7) found DRw images significantly better for visibility of anatomic landmarks such as the carina (p=0.01-0.001). Most radiologists (6/7) found DRw images to be better or clearly better than CR images for position of tubes and lines, and edge-enhanced DRw images to be especially helpful for evaluation of central venous catheters and esophageal tubes (p=0.027-0.001). None of the radiologists deemed CR images superior for visibility of clinically significant findings. CONCLUSIONS: Critical care chest radiography with a portable DRw system can provide similar or superior information compared to a CR system regarding clinically significant findings and position of tubes and lines.

Entrustable Professional Activities: Ten Things Radiologists Do.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Learner assessment in medical education has undergone tremendous change over the past two decades. During this time frame, the concept of Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs) was introduced to guide the faculty when making competency-based decisions on the level of supervision required by trainees. EPAs are gaining momentum in medical education as a basis for decisions related to transitioning from residency training to clinical practice. The purpose of this article is twofold: (1) define EPAs for radiology (EPA-R) and (2) illustrate radiology-specific examples of these EPAs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multi-institutional work group composed of members of the Alliance of Directors and Vice Chairs of Education in Radiology convened at the 2015 Association of University Radiologists annual meeting to discuss radiology EPAs. The EPAs initially developed by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Radiology milestone work group and the resultant ACGME Radiology milestones formed the basis for this discussion. RESULTS: A total of 10 radiology EPAs and illustrative vignettes were developed to help radiology educators and trainees better understand milestone assessment and how this translates to the necessary skills and responsibilities of practicing radiologists. Examples of EPA mapping to the ACGME subcompetencies and methods of assessment were included. CONCLUSIONS: EPAs offer an opportunity to improve our approach to training by increasing our focus on how we provide appropriate supervision to our residents and assess their progress. In this work, through suggested lists and vignettes, we have attempted to establish the framework for further discussion and development of EPA-Rs.

State of the art: Response assessment in lung cancer in the era of genomic medicine.

Tumor response assessment has been a foundation for advances in cancer therapy. Recent discoveries of effective targeted therapy for specific genomic abnormalities in lung cancer and their clinical application have brought revolutionary advances in lung cancer therapy and transformed the oncologist's approach to patients with lung cancer. Because imaging is a major method of response assessment in lung cancer both in clinical trials and practice, radiologists must understand the genomic alterations in lung cancer and the rapidly evolving therapeutic approaches to effectively communicate with oncology colleagues and maintain the key role in lung cancer care. This article describes the origin and importance of tumor response assessment, presents the recent genomic discoveries in lung cancer and therapies directed against these genomic changes, and describes how these discoveries affect the radiology community. The authors then summarize the conventional Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors and World Health Organization guidelines, which continue to be the major determinants of trial endpoints, and describe their limitations particularly in an era of genomic-based therapy. More advanced imaging techniques for lung cancer response assessment are presented, including computed tomography tumor volume and perfusion, dynamic contrast material-enhanced and diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging, and positron emission tomography with fluorine 18 fluorodeoxyglucose and novel tracers. State-of-art knowledge of lung cancer biology, treatment, and imaging will help the radiology community to remain effective contributors to the personalized care of lung cancer patients.