Neonatal neurosonography practices: a survey of active Society for Pediatric Radiology members.

BACKGROUND: While neonatal brain US is emerging as an imaging modality with greater portability, widespread availability and relative lower cost compared to MRI, it is unknown whether US is being maximized in infants to increase sensitivity in detecting intracranial pathology related to common indications such as hemorrhage, ischemia and ventriculomegaly. OBJECTIVE: To survey active members of the Society for Pediatric Radiology (SPR) regarding their utilization of various cranial US techniques and reporting practices in neonates. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We distributed an online 10-question survey to SPR members to assess practice patterns of neonatal cranial US including protocol details, use of additional sonographic views, perceived utility of spectral Doppler evaluation, and germinal matrix hemorrhage and ventricular size reporting preferences. RESULTS: Of the 107 institutions represented, 90% of respondents were split evenly between free-standing children's hospitals and pediatric departments attached to a general hospital. We found that most used template reporting (72/107, 67%). The anterior fontanelle approach was standard practice (107/107, 100%). We found that posterior fontanelle views (72% sometimes, rarely or never) and high-frequency linear probes to evaluate far-field structures (52% sometimes, rarely or never) were seldom used. Results revealed a range of ways to report germinal matrix hemorrhage and measure ventricular indices to assess ventricular dilatation. There was substantial intra-institutional protocol and reporting variability as well. CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate high variability in neurosonography practice and reporting among active SPR members, aside from the anterior fontanelle views, template reporting and linear high-resolution near-field evaluation. Standardization of reporting germinal matrix hemorrhage and ventricular size would help ensure a more consistent application of neonatal US in research and clinical practice.

Utilization of neonatal sedation and anesthesia: an SPR survey.

BACKGROUND: There is little data regarding the use of sedation and anesthesia for neonatal imaging, with practice patterns varying widely across institutions. OBJECTIVE: To understand the current utilization of sedation and anesthesia for neonatal imaging, and review the current literature and recommendations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One thousand, two hundred twenty-six questionnaire invitations were emailed to North American physician members of the Society for Pediatric Radiology using the Survey Monkey platform. Descriptive statistical analysis of the responses was performed. RESULTS: The final results represented 59 institutions from 26 U.S. states, the District of Columbia and three Canadian provinces. Discrepant responses from institutions with multiple respondents (13 out of 59 institutions) were prevalent in multiple categories. Of the 80 total respondents, slightly more than half (56%) were associated with children's hospitals and 44% with the pediatric division of an adult radiology department. Most radiologists (70%) were cognizant of the neonatal sedation policies in their departments. A majority (89%) acknowledged awareness of neurotoxicity concerns in the literature and agreed with the validity of these concerns. In neonates undergoing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), 46% of respondents reported attempting feed and bundle in all patients and an additional 46% attempt on a case-by-case basis, with most (35%) using a single swaddling attempt before sedation. Sedation was most often used for neonatal interventional procedures (93%) followed by MR (85%), nuclear medicine (48%) and computed tomography (31%). More than half of respondents (63%) reported an average success rate of greater than 50% when using neonatal sedation for MR. CONCLUSION: Current practice patterns, policies and understanding of the use of sedation and anesthesia for neonatal imaging vary widely across institutions in North America, and even among radiologists from the same institution. Our survey highlights the need for improved awareness, education, and standardization at both the institutional level and the societal level. Awareness of the potential for anesthetic neurotoxicity and success of non-pharmacologic approaches to neonatal imaging is crucial, along with education of health care personnel, systematic approaches to quality control and improvement, and integration of evidence-based protocols into clinical practice.

Working from home during the COVID-19 pandemic: surveys of the Society for Pediatric Radiology and the Society of Chiefs of Radiology at Children's Hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, some pediatric radiologists have shifted to working from home; the long-term ramifications for pediatric radiologists and departments have not yet been defined. OBJECTIVE: To characterize experiences of working from home associated with the COVID-19 pandemic and guide expectations after the pandemic is controlled, via separate surveys of Society for Pediatric Radiology (SPR) and Society of Chiefs of Radiology at Children's Hospitals (SCORCH) members. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two separate surveys were conducted. In the first, SPR members were surveyed Jan. 11 through Feb. 8, 2021. The response rate was 17.0% (255 of 1,501). Survey questions included demographics, information on the ability to work from home and subjective experiences ranked on a scale of 0 to 10. The survey enabled segregation and comparison of responses between those with and without home PACS. In the second survey, SCORCH members were surveyed Dec. 8, 2020, through Jan. 8, 2021. The response rate was 51.5% (51/99). Survey questions included the logistics of working from home, technical specifications and the expectations on clinical duties performed from home. The Wilcoxon rank test was used to determine statistical significance of compared variables between respondents with and without home PACS in SPR members, and expectations between SPR and SCORCH members. Descriptive statistics summarized demographic questions and free text responses. RESULTS: The majority of member respondents (81.2%, 207/255) had a home PACS and most departments provided home PACS to faculty (94.1%, 48/51). Overall, radiologists who could work from home were satisfied with their ability to work from home (mean rating: 8.3/10) and were significantly more satisfied than predicted by those without home PACS (5.9/10, P<0.0001). Respondents overwhelmingly indicated they were less able to teach trainees (mean rating: 2.7/10) and had decreased emotional engagement (mean rating: 4.4/10), but had improved research productivity and cognitive ability for research when working from home (mean rating for both: 5.3/10). Regarding the expectations of the ability to work from home after no longer needing to address the pandemic, department chairs generally favored fewer rotations from home, with 97.9% (47/48) indicating working from home should be 60% or fewer assignments, compared with 84.1% (164/195) of individual radiologists (P=0.071). CONCLUSIONS: Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a shift to working from home using PACS. Results of these SPR and SCORCH member surveys can help inform future decisions regarding pediatric radiologists working from home once the pandemic has been controlled.

Guidelines for expert testimony in pediatric radiology.

Pediatric radiologists have the professional and ethical duty to assist, inform and educate the legal system in regard to matters involving medical imaging in children. These guidelines, drafted by the Society for Pediatric Radiology Ethics Committee and approved by the Society for Pediatric Radiology Board of Directors, provide recommendations for expert legal testimony in pediatric radiology and codify minimal ethical norms for the pediatric radiology expert witness in legal proceedings.

Pediatric contrast-enhanced ultrasound: shedding light on the pursuit of approval in the United States.

For two decades, pediatric contrast US has been well accepted throughout Europe and other parts of the world outside the United States because of its high diagnostic efficacy and extremely favorable safety profile. This includes intravenous (IV) administration, contrast-enhanced US (CEUS) and the intravesical application, contrast-enhanced voiding urosonography (ceVUS). However, the breakthrough for pediatric contrast US in the United States did not come until 2016, when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first pediatric indication for a US contrast agent. This initial approval covered the use of Lumason (Bracco Diagnostics, Monroe Township, NJ) for the evaluation of focal liver lesions via IV administration in children. A second pediatric indication followed shortly thereafter, when the FDA extended the use of Lumason for assessing known or suspected vesicoureteral reflux via intravesical application in children. Both initial pediatric approvals were granted without prospective pediatric clinical trials, based instead on published literature describing favorable safety and efficacy in children. Three years later, in 2019, the FDA approved Lumason for pediatric echocardiography following a clinical trial involving a total of 12 subjects at 2 sites. The story of how we achieved these FDA approvals spans more than a decade and involves the extraordinary dedication of two professional societies, namely the International Contrast Ultrasound Society (ICUS) and the Society for Pediatric Radiology (SPR). Credit also must be given to the FDA staff for their commitment to the welfare of children and their openness to compelling evidence that contrast US is a safe, reliable, radiation-free imaging option for our pediatric patients. Understanding the history of this approval process will impact the practical application of US contrast agents, particularly when expanding off-label indications in the pediatric population. This article describes the background of the FDA's approval of pediatric contrast US applications to better illuminate the potential pathways to approvals of future indications.

Current trends in pediatric nuclear medicine: a Society for Pediatric Radiology membership survey.

BACKGROUND: Pediatric nuclear medicine is evolving, and its practice patterns are uncertain. Knowledge of the current trends in pediatric nuclear medicine might be helpful to direct local decisions, including expectations for patient care, needs for capital acquisitions, and staffing recruitment strategies. OBJECTIVE: To provide data regarding the current practice of pediatric nuclear medicine via a Society for Pediatric Radiology (SPR) membership survey. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The SPR emailed our 25-question survey to all 1,847 SPR members in August 2018 and we accepted responses until April 2019. Questions focused on nuclear medicine staffing, positron emission tomography (PET) utilization, and radiotherapy availability. Respondents could indicate their affiliated hospital, which we used for data cataloguing only. Analysis of survey responses was blinded to reported institution. We analyzed response data using contingency tables. Independence testing between categorical variables based on proportions of physicians with additional nuclear medicine board certification was performed on a subset of questions regarding PET and therapy practices. RESULTS: Sixty-seven people from at least 29 hospitals responded to the survey, including all 10 of the 2018-2019 U.S. News & World Report best children's hospitals. The majority (48/67, 71.6%) of respondents indicated that pediatric nuclear medicine examinations were interpreted in the pediatric radiology department by pediatric radiologists and that most physicians interpreting the exams (43/67, 64.2%) did not have subspecialty certification in nuclear medicine or nuclear radiology. Most facilities offered PET/CT (57/67, 85.1%); few offered PET/MRI (12/67, 17.9%). Most facilities offered radiotherapies (57/67, 85.1%) but at most of these facilities (30/57, 52.6%), fewer than half the physicians who cover nuclear medicine were approved to administer therapies. In the subset analyses based on proportion of physicians with additional nuclear medicine board certification, there were statistically significant differences between the groups in availability of PET/MRI, lutetium-177 dotatate therapy programs, and percentages of physicians approved to administer therapies. CONCLUSION: Pediatric nuclear medicine is largely practiced by pediatric radiologists without subspecialty certification. Staffing, PET practices and therapies vary among practices, in part associated with the number of radiologists with nuclear medicine board certification.

Stressors contributing to burnout amongst pediatric radiologists: results from a survey of the Society for Pediatric Radiology.

BACKGROUND: A recent study showed a high prevalence of burnout in pediatric radiology. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate potential stressors contributing to burnout in pediatric radiology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Society for Pediatric Radiology members received an invitation for an anonymous survey evaluating stressors contributing to burnout. Stressors evaluated included call burden, financial stress, work-life balance, health care evolution and job market changes, and radiology as a career choice. Additional questions regarding demographics were obtained. RESULTS: The response rate was 460/1,453 (32%). The prevalence of emotional exhaustion was 66% (286/435), depersonalization was 61% (265/433) and perceived lack of personal accomplishment was 15% (67/436). In a backward selective logistic regression model, work-life imbalance and call burden were the only significant factors predicting higher emotional exhaustion (P<0.001). Using a similar model, work-life imbalance, call burden and decreased rate of reimbursement were significantly associated with higher probability of depersonalization (P=0.033, 0.0002 and 0.015, respectively). Emotional exhaustion and depersonalization were significantly associated with higher odds of a radiologist's wish to work in another medical specialty (P=0.011 and 0.002, respectively). CONCLUSION: Key stressors contributing to burnout in pediatric radiology include work-life imbalance, pediatric call burden and a decreased rate of reimbursement. Burnout in pediatric radiology is a serious issue that needs to be addressed and prioritized on the individual and departmental/institutional levels and further investigated to develop effective interventions to mitigate it.