Interventional Radiology Workforce Shortages Affecting Small and Rural Practices: A Report of the SIR/ACR Joint Task Force on Recruitment and Retention of Interventional Radiologists to Small and Rural Practices.

Radiology practices characterized as small and rural are challenged to recruit and retain interventional radiologists. Lack of access to interventional radiologic services results in a failure to meet the needs of patients, hospitals, and other community stakeholders. Acknowledging this challenge, the ACR's Commission on General, Small, Emergency and/or Rural Practice and Commission on Interventional and Cardiovascular Imaging and the Society of Interventional Radiology partnered to establish a joint task force to study this issue and identify strategies the ACR and the Society of Interventional Radiology should take to improve small and rural practice recruitment and retention of interventional radiologists. This report describes the deliberations and recommendations of the task force.

Interpretations of Examinations Outside of Radiologists' Fellowship Training: Assessment of Discrepancy Rates Among 5.9 Million Examinations From a National Teleradiology Databank.

BACKGROUND. In community settings, radiologists commonly function as multispecialty radiologists, interpreting examinations outside of their area of fellowship training. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this article was to compare discrepancy rates for preliminary interpretations of acute community-setting examinations that are concordant versus discordant with interpreting radiologists' area of fellowship training. METHODS. This retrospective study used the databank of a U.S. teleradiology company that provides preliminary interpretations for client community hospitals. The analysis included 5,883,980 acute examinations performed from 2012 to 2016 that were preliminarily interpreted by 269 teleradiologists with a fellowship of neuroradiology, abdominal radiology, or musculoskeletal radiology. When providing final interpretations, client on-site radiologists voluntarily submitted quality assurance (QA) requests if preliminary and final interpretations were discrepant; the teleradiology company's QA committee categorized discrepancies as major (n = 8444) or minor (n = 17,208). Associations among examination type (common vs advanced), relationship between examination subspecialty and the teleradiologist's fellowship (concordant vs discordant), and major and minor discrepancies were assessed using three-way conditional analyses with generalized estimating equations. RESULTS. For examinations with a concordant subspecialty, the major discrepancy rate was lower for common than for advanced examinations (0.13% vs 0.26%; relative risk [RR], 0.50, 95% CI, 0.42-0.60; p < .001). For examinations with a discordant subspecialty, the major discrepancy rate was lower for common than advanced examinations (0.14% vs 0.18%; RR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.72-0.90; p < .001). For common examinations, the major discrepancy rate was not different between examinations with concordant versus discordant subspecialty (0.13% vs 0.14%; RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.81-1.01; p = .07). For advanced examinations, the major discrepancy rate was higher for examinations with concordant versus discordant subspecialty (0.26% vs 0.18%; RR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.18-1.79; p < .001). The minor discrepancy rate was higher among advanced examinations for those with concordant versus discordant subspecialty (0.34% vs 0.29%; RR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.00-1.36; p = .04), but not different for other comparisons (p > .05). CONCLUSION. Major and minor discrepancy rates were not higher for acute community-setting examinations outside of interpreting radiologists' fellowship training. Discrepancy rates increased for advanced examinations. CLINICAL IMPACT. The findings support multispecialty radiologist practice in acute community settings. Efforts to match examination and interpreting radiologist sub-specialty may not reduce diagnostic discrepancies.

Challenges faced by women in radiology during the pandemic - A summary of the AAWR Women's Caucus at the ACR 2020 annual meeting.

The COVID-19 pandemic has dramatically altered the professional and personal lives of radiologists and radiation oncologists. This article summarizes the 2020 American Association for Women in Radiology (AAWR) Women's Caucus at the American College of Radiology (ACR) Annual Meeting. The caucus focused on the major challenges that women in radiology have faced during the pandemic.

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.

2017 ACR Annual Meeting Open-Microphone Session: Navigating the Landscape of Changing Practice Models: Private Practice, Corporate Radiology, and Enterprise Systems.

Many practice groups are considering adopting new practice models, primarily to secure their practices by adapting to new payment models, government compliance and regulation, and increasing IT and infrastructure costs. As we move toward value-based care and capitation, the value equation (value = quality/cost) will lead us to also compete on cost to improve value. No matter what payment models ultimately dominate, we need to be prepared to lead in a value-based care environment. Measures of value will either be defined by radiologists or imposed by outside entities. It is critical to our continued success that practices and practice leaders continue to fully and strongly support the ACR to avoid the possibility of a decline in membership that may accompany a lack of practice engagement. Consolidation appears inevitable, but with the help of the ACR, radiologists should have a vibrant future if investments are made now in determining appropriate radiology-specific value measures that are meaningful in consolidated health care environments.

ACR 2016 Open-Microphone Session: ACR Membership 3.0-Moving From Member Volume to Value.

This report of the 2016 ACR Council Open Microphone session reviews the discussion around interests and concerns of council members and state chapter leaders as to the perceived and real value of their ACR membership, and how the ACR might further enhance membership value and meaningful engagement with members.

2015 AMCLC Open-Microphone Session: Improving the IQ (Information Quality) of What We Do.

Each year an open-microphone session is hosted by the Council Steering Committee. The committee invited an expert panel to discuss the use of effective communication in appropriate procedure selection and methods and resources to communicate the results of procedures performed in an actionable and clear manner to referring clinicians and patients, as well as downstream data systems. The ACR is actively encouraging radiologists to leverage existing and new technologies to increase their visibility in the health care system. Key features in Imaging 3.0 are results reporting through actionable reports, decision support for results reporting, guidelines for recommendations, tools for actionable reports, and tracking a radiologist's recommendations. The final radiology report is an essential product of our service, but it is increasingly clear that the noninterpretive components of our profession will add the most value to patient care. The radiology report is not the only evidence of our work. Nonetheless, the information quality and content of the radiology report can and must be improved so that it can add value and clinical usefulness toward excellent patient care. We must use appropriate tools and "best knowledge" to deliver actionable and value-added high-quality reports.