An Upstream Reparative Justice Framework for Improving Diversity in Radiology.

Health care workforce diversity is vital in combating health disparities. Despite much recent attention to downstream strategies to improve diversity in radiology, such as increased recruitment efforts and holistic application review, workforce diversity has not tangibly improved in recent decades. Yet, little discussion has been devoted to defining the obstacles that might delay, complicate, or altogether prevent persons from groups that have been traditionally marginalized and minoritized from a career in radiology. Refocusing attention to upstream barriers to medical education is vital to develop sustainable workforce diversity efforts in radiology. The purpose of this article is to highlight the varied obstacles students and trainees from historically underrepresented communities may face along the radiology career pathway and to provide concrete corollary programmatic solutions. Using a reparative justice framework, which encourages race- and gender-conscious repair of historical injustices, and the socioecological model, which recognizes an individual's choices are informed by historical and ongoing systems of power, this article advocates for tailored programs to improve justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion in radiology.

Quality outcomes of reinterpretation of brain CT studies by subspecialty experts in stroke imaging.

OBJECTIVE: The purposes of this study were to determine the clinical importance and relative value of reinterpretation of brain CT studies by subspecialty experts by assessing the accuracy of interpretation by general radiologists at primary stroke centers and to assess interpretive quality outcomes as a function of change in the treatment of patients with stroke diagnoses or acute presentations of suspected stroke. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Computerized medical records for the years 2009-2010 at four major community hospitals were queried for primary interpretation of brain CT studies of stroke patients with an acute presentation of either stroke or suspected stroke as diagnosed by board-certified general radiologists (nonneuroradiologists). A central database was queried that allowed one to query by clinical history or symptoms. Secondary interpretation of images of the identified patient sample was then performed by three experienced neuroradiologists. Each case was initially interpreted as an emergency or urgent study by a general radiologist. The reinterpretations performed by a neuroradiologist were scored as concordant or discordant. The discordant studies were categorized as a major discordance if there was a change in clinical management or as a minor discordance if there was no effect on or change in clinical management. The assessment was limited to brain CT studies without contrast administration. CT angiography and perfusion CT studies were not included in the analysis. Patients with hemorrhagic stroke, brain tumors, abscesses, and AIDS or HIV infection were excluded to limit the assessment to ischemic nonhemorrhagic disease. RESULTS: Of the 560 studies reviewed, 14 studies (2.5%) were identified as discordant. Of those discordant studies, four (0.7% of the original 560) were categorized as major discrepancies necessitating a change in clinical management. Ten (1.78%) were categorized as minor discrepancies, for which there was no change in management. There were no permanent adverse outcomes with respect to morbidity and mortality as a result of a discrepant interpretation, as determined by chart review or communication with the attending or referring physician by the secondary reader. CONCLUSION: Most of the interpreted head CT cases read by board-certified general radiologists for patients presenting with stroke or stroke symptoms did not result in discordant interpretations as verified by subspecialty experts. Discordant interpretations did not result in changes in clinical management in most cases. Double reading of head CT scans for these patients by subspecialty experts appears to be an inefficient method of substantially improving imaging health quality outcomes in stroke.

Mitigating the Transmission of COVID-19 with the Appropriate Usage of Personal Protective Protocols and Equipment in Breast Imaging and Intervention.

The integration of personal protective equipment (PPE) and procedures into breast imaging and intervention practices will mitigate the risk of transmission of COVID-19 during the pandemic. Although supply chain shortages have improved, understanding the proper use of PPE and protocols to mitigate overconsumption are important to ensure efficacious utilization of PPE. Protocols and best practices are reviewed, and guidelines and resource materials are referenced in order to support breast imaging healthcare professionals.

Historically Black Schools of Medicine Radiology Residency Programs: Contributions and Lessons Learned.

INTRODUCTION: Black radiologists remain significantly underrepresented in the radiology workforce, despite a 1973 plea by Black radiologists of the National Medical Association to increase training programs for minority radiologists. OBJECTIVE: The authors provide a qualitative narrative that highlights the radiology residency programs of three historically Black schools of medicine (HBSOM) in the U.S., their contributions, and lessons learned from their closure. METHODS: Data from public repositories, interviews, and conversations were conflated to chronicle significant events and establish a timeline during these residency programs' existence. RESULTS: Radiology residencies at Howard University School of Medicine (1945), Meharry Medical College (1949), and Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science (1972) were established to train Black doctors to treat communities of color. These programs provided care to underserved and under-resourced areas of the country, where inequitable health care fueled a legacy of poor health outcomes. These radiology residency programs collapsed under the weight of suboptimal funding, strapped capital budgets, attrition of faculty, a declining hospital patient census, and failure to maintain other residency specialty programs.` CONCLUSION: Understanding the history and impact of these programs, and of their closure, can be leveraged to develop strategies to increase the representation of racial and ethnic minorities in radiology. Possible reinstatement, with appropriate allocation of resources and creation of intentional policies to ensure sustained success, merits further investigation and may be a pathway to achieve optimal representation.

Computed tomography imaging in the management of headache in the emergency department: cost efficacy and policy implications.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the economic impact and diagnostic utility of computed tomography (CT) in the management of emergency department (ED) patients presenting with headache and nonfocal physical examinations. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Computerized medical records from 2 major community hospitals were retrospectively reviewed of patients presenting with headache over a 2.5-year period (2003-2006). A model was developed to assess test outcomes, CT result costs, and average institutional costs of the ED visit. The binomial probabilistic distribution of expected maximum cases was also calculated. RESULTS: Of the 5510 patient records queried, 882 (16%) met the above criteria. Two hundred eighty-one patients demonstrated positive CT findings (31.8%), but only 9 (1.02%) demonstrated clinically significant results (requiring a change in management). Most positive studies were incidental, including old infarcts, chronic ischemic changes, encephalomalacia, and sinusitis. The average cost of the head CT exam and ED visit was $764 (2006 dollars). This was approximately 3 times the cost of a routine outpatient visit (plus CT) for headache ($253). The incremental cost per clinically significant case detected in the ED was $50078. The calculated expected maximum number of clinically significant positive cases was almost 50% lower than what was actually detected. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that emergent CT imaging of nonfocal headache yields a low percentage of positive clinically significant results, and has limited cost efficacy. Since the use of CT for imaging patients with headache in the ED is widespread, the economic implications are considerable. Health policy reforms are indicated to better direct utilization in these patients.

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.

Quality outcomes of reinterpretation of brain CT imaging studies by subspecialty experts in neuroradiology.

PURPOSE: To determine the clinical importance and relative value of reinterpreting brain CT imaging studies by subspecialty experts regarding changes in clinical management. METHODS: Computerized records were queried at two institutions during the years 2002-2003 for both primary interpretation by board-certified nonneuroradiologists and secondary interpretation by three neuroradiologists. A total of 1,081 cases were reviewed. Each case was initially interpreted as an emergent or urgent study. The reinterpreted studies were scored as concordant or discordant by the subspecialty experts. The discordant studies were then categorized as a "major discordance" if there was a change in clinical management, or as a "minor discordance" if there was no impact or change in clinical management. RESULTS: Of the 1,081 studies reviewed, 14 studies were identified as discordant (1.3%). Of those discordant studies, four were categorized as major discrepancies necessitating a change in clinical management (0.4 %). Ten were categorized as minor discrepancies (0.9%). There were no permanent adverse outcomes with respect to morbidity and mortality as a result of any discrepancy. CONCLUSION: The vast majority of interpreted head CT cases read by board-certified general radiologists do not result in discordant interpretations as verified by subspecialty experts. Discordant interpretations did not result in changes in clinical management in most cases. Double reading of head CTs by subspecialty experts appears to be an inefficient method of substantially improving imaging health quality outcomes.

Diversity, Inclusion, and Representation: It Is Time to Act.

Although the available pool of qualified underrepresented minority and women medical school graduates has expanded in recent decades, their representation in the radiological professions has improved only marginally. Recognizing this deficit in diversity, many professional medical societies, including the ACR, have incorporated these values as core elements of their missions and instituted programs that address previously identified barriers to a more diverse workforce. These barriers include insufficient exposure of underrepresented minorities and women to radiology and radiation oncology; misperception of these specialties as non-patient care and not community service; unconscious bias; and delayed preparation of candidates to compete successfully for residency positions. Critical success factors in expanding diversity and inclusion are well identified both outside and within the radiological professions; these are reviewed in the current communication. Radiology leaders are positioned to lead the profession in expanding the diversity and improving the inclusiveness of our professional workforce in service to an increasingly diverse society and patient population.

Improving diversity, inclusion, and representation in radiology and radiation oncology part 2: challenges and recommendations.

The ACR Commission for Women and General Diversity is committed to identifying barriers to a diverse physician workforce in radiology and radiation oncology (RRO), and to offering policy recommendations to overcome these barriers. Part 2 of a 2-part position article from the commission addresses issues regarding diversity and inclusion in the context of career choices and professional advancement. Barriers to improving diversity and representation in RRO are reviewed. Discussion focuses on the development and implementation of concrete strategies designed to eliminate the current subspecialty disparity and highlights the need for the ACR to introduce programs and incentives with targeted and achievable goals with measurable outcomes. Recommendations are made aimed at fostering an environment of inclusion and diversity, so as to secure a successful future for all members of the RRO workforce. The future of radiology will be enhanced by increasing diversity and representation in the professional workforce, which will allow us to better address the varied needs of increasingly diverse patient populations, and to mitigate disparities in healthcare access, delivery, and outcomes. By leveraging diverse backgrounds, experiences, and skills of those in RRO, we will create new, effective ways to not only educate our trainees, medical colleagues, and patients but also improve delivery of health care and our service to society.

Improving diversity, inclusion, and representation in radiology and radiation oncology part 1: why these matter.

The ACR Commission for Women and General Diversity is committed to identifying barriers to a diverse physician workforce in radiology and radiation oncology (RRO), and to offering policy recommendations to overcome these barriers. In Part 1 of a 2-part position article from the commission, diversity as a concept and its dimensions of personality, character, ethnicity, biology, biography, and organization are introduced. Terms commonly used to describe diverse individuals and groups are reviewed. The history of diversity and inclusion in US society and health care are addressed. The post-Civil Rights Era evolution of diversity in medicine is delineated: Diversity 1.0, with basic awareness, nondiscrimination, and recruitment; Diversity 2.0, with appreciation of the value of diversity but inclusion as peripheral or in opposition to other goals; and Diversity 3.0, which integrates diversity and inclusion into core missions of organizations and their leadership, and leverages its potential for innovation and contribution. The current states of diversity and inclusion in RRO are reviewed in regard to gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and gender identity. The lack of representation and unchanged demographics in these fields relative to other medical specialties are explored. The business case for diversity is discussed, with examples of successful models and potential application to the health care industry in general and to RRO. The moral, ethical, and public health imperative for diversity is also highlighted.