In Situ Pulmonary Arterial Thrombosis: Literature Review and Clinical Significance of a Distinct Entity.

Filling defects identified in the pulmonary arterial tree are commonly presumed to represent an embolic phenomenon originating from thrombi formed in remote veins, particularly lower-extremity deep venous thrombosis (DVT). However, accumulating evidence supports an underappreciated cause for pulmonary arterial thrombosis (PAT), namely, de novo thrombogenesis-whereby thrombosis arises within the pulmonary arteries in the absence of DVT. Although historically underrecognized, in situ PAT has become of heightened importance with the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 infection. In situ PAT is attributed to endothelial dysfunction, systemic inflammation, and acute lung injury and has been described in a range of conditions including COVID-19, trauma, acute chest syndrome in sickle cell disease, pulmonary infections, and severe pulmonary arterial hypertension. The distinction between pulmonary embolism and in situ PAT may have important implications regarding management decisions and clinical outcomes. In this review, we summarize the pathophysiology, imaging appearances, and management of in situ PAT in various clinical situations. This understanding will promote optimal tailored treatment strategies for this increasingly recognized entity.

Mandating Limits on Workload, Duty, and Speed in Radiology.

Research has not yet quantified the effects of workload or duty hours on the accuracy of radiologists. With the exception of a brief reduction in imaging studies during the 2020 peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, the workload of radiologists in the United States has seen relentless growth in recent years. One concern is that this increased demand could lead to reduced accuracy. Behavioral studies in species ranging from insects to humans have shown that decision speed is inversely correlated to decision accuracy. A potential solution is to institute workload and duty limits to optimize radiologist performance and patient safety. The concern, however, is that any prescribed mandated limits would be arbitrary and thus no more advantageous than allowing radiologists to self-regulate. Specific studies have been proposed to determine whether limits reduce error, and if so, to provide a principled basis for such limits. This could determine the precise susceptibility of individual radiologists to medical error as a function of speed during image viewing, the maximum number of studies that could be read during a work shift, and the appropriate shift duration as a function of time of day. Before principled recommendations for restrictions are made, however, it is important to understand how radiologists function both optimally and at the margins of adequate performance. This study examines the relationship between interpretation speed and error rates in radiology, the potential influence of artificial intelligence on reading speed and error rates, and the possible outcomes of imposed limits on both caseload and duty hours. This review concludes that the scientific evidence needed to make meaningful rules is lacking and notes that regulating workloads without scientific principles can be more harmful than not regulating at all.

Rationing and Disparities in Health Care: Implications for Radiology Clinical Practice Guidelines.

We examine the relationship between the rationing of health care resources and disparities in health care delivery and the specific implications for radiologic resource allocation frameworks such as the ACR Appropriateness Criteria. We explore what rationing is in this context and how it is manifested in radiology. We review how rationing has taken many forms and how rationing has influenced the development of disparities in access and outcomes within health care and specifically within the context of radiology. We describe how the relationship between rationing and health care delivery disparities manifested during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic and the corrective measures that were proposed to established rationing frameworks to facilitate more equitable pandemic-related resource distribution. We offer suggestions regarding how such solutions might be brought into radiologic resource allocation schemes to help mitigate disparities in radiologic care in the future.

Brief communication: A departmental "command center" to facilitate staff safety and patient care during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic.

During the initial peak of the COVID-19 crisis, for the approximately 6 weeks beginning on April 8, 2020 and continuing through mid-May 2020, our academic radiology department shifted all nonprocedural operations to a "Command Center" model. This intervention was designed to maximize faculty and resident safety while continuing to provide prompt radiology care to our patients and support to front-line clinicians. During this time most of our radiology faculty and residents worked remotely. The five on-site residents were stationed together in a single large reading room where they worked as generalists, supervised by remote faculty. This room became the hub of all clinical communications. This brief report describes this experience, reviewing what was done and what was learned.

ACR Statement on Safe Resumption of Routine Radiology Care During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic.

The ACR recognizes that radiology practices are grappling with when and how to safely resume routine radiology care during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Although it is unclear how long the pandemic will last, it may persist for many months. Throughout this time, it will be important to perform safe, comprehensive, and effective care for patients with and patients without COVID-19, recognizing that asymptomatic transmission is common with this disease. Local idiosyncrasies prevent a single prescriptive strategy. However, general considerations can be applied to most practice environments. A comprehensive strategy will include consideration of local COVID-19 statistics; availability of personal protective equipment; local, state, and federal government mandates; institutional regulatory guidance; local safety measures; health care worker availability; patient and health care worker risk factors; factors specific to the indication(s) for radiology care; and examination or procedure acuity. An accurate risk-benefit analysis of postponing versus performing a given routine radiology examination or procedure often is not possible because of many unknown and complex factors. However, this is the overriding principle: If the risk of illness or death to a health care worker or patient from health care-acquired COVID-19 is greater than the risk of illness or death from delaying radiology care, the care should be delayed; however, if the opposite is true, the radiology care should proceed in a timely fashion.