It's a Two-Way Street: Giving and Receiving Feedback to the Unaware.

Giving and receiving constructive feedback is a valuable skill and an evolving process due to improved understanding and changes in culture. This article provides a practical review of key elements of effective feedback skills and strategies for providing constructive feedback, with a focus on how to address recipients who may have impaired insight into the issue at hand. Commonly known tips and tricks include direct, immediate, and specific feedback delivered in a safe setting and in a conversational manner. This article specifically considers how the feedback will be heard or accepted by the intended recipient, in order for the educator to best overcome hurdles in relaying constructive criticism.

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.

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.

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.

The Relationship Between US Medical Licensing Examination Step Scores and ABR Core Examination Outcome and Performance: A Multi-institutional Study.

PURPOSE: We analyzed multi-institutional data to understand the relationship of US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step scores to ABR Core examination performance to identify Step score tiers that stratify radiology residents into different Core performance groups. METHODS: We collected USMLE Step scores and 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. USMLE scores were grouped into noniles using z scores and then aggregated into three tiers based on similar Core examination pass-or-fail outcomes. Core performance was grouped using standard deviation from the mean and then measured by the percent of residents with scores below the mean. Differences between Step tiers for Core outcome and Core performance were statistically evaluated (P < .05 considered significant). RESULTS: Differences in Step 1 terciles Core failure rates (45.9%, 11.9%, and 3.0%, from lowest to highest Step tiers; n = 416) and below-mean Core performance (83.8%, 54.1%, and 21.1%, respectively; n = 402) were significant. Differences in Step 2 groups Core failure rates (30.0%, 10.6%, and 2.0%, from lowest to highest Step tiers; n = 387) and below-mean Core performance (80.0%, 43.7%, and 14.0%, respectively; n = 380) were significant. Step 2 results modified Core outcome and performance predictions for residents in Step 1 terciles of varying statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: Tiered scoring of USMLE Step results has value in predicting radiology resident performance on the ABR Core examination; effective stratification of radiology resident applicants can be done without reporting numerical Step scores.

Running a Radiology Residency Program: Strategies for Success.

Running a successful radiology residency program requires departments to navigate the evolving educational landscape at the departmental, institutional, and national levels. To attract the best applicants, departments must invest time and money to support the leadership of the program and its faculty to provide innovative educational opportunities in a positive learning environment while simultaneously complying with all of the requirements of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. The key administrative requirements of a successful radiology residency program are described and can be grouped into (a) essential administrative components, (b) the clinical learning environment review and self-study process, and (c) resident recruitment. Ten specific strategies for running a successful residency program are also presented. The goal is for this article to serve as a guide for not only existing diagnostic and interventional radiology residency programs but also newly formed programs that are in the process of seeking accreditation. ©RSNA, 2018.