The 2021 ACR/RBMA Workforce Survey: Practice Types, Employment Trends, and Hiring Needs.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to analyze current radiology practice types, specific subspecialty needs, employment trends, and retirement trends. METHODS: ACR members, nonmembers, and Radiology Business Management Association members were surveyed using predominantly structured closed-ended questions about a variety of current and recent radiology practice characteristics. Responses were group practice deduplicated and weighted. RESULTS: Of 1,702 survey respondents, 64% were men, with a median age of 51 years. In 2021, 62% of responding practices hired radiologists, with the average practice hiring 2 radiologists and academic practices on average hiring the most (3.5). Most radiologists (87%) were hired for full-time positions, with independent practices hiring the largest proportion of part-time positions. Body and breast imagers represented the largest numbers of hired radiologists (17% each). Practices anticipated similar hiring patterns in 2022, prioritizing breast (37%) and body (35%) imaging. Of all practice types, academic groups were least likely to prioritize general radiologist hiring. A large majority (82%) of radiology practices permit remote work (teleradiology), more common at academic than other practices. Of currently employed radiologists, 16% plan to seek new employment in the next year; early-career radiologists indicated the highest likelihood (92%) and academic radiologists the lowest (66%) of remaining in the same practice for at least 5 years. A large majority of practices (80%) reported no radiologist retirements in 2021. Of those retiring, the average age was 75 years, and 66% worked full-time until retirement. CONCLUSIONS: Radiologist recruiting remains robust. Current information on practice characteristics may help inform radiology practice leaders seeking to right-size their groups.

Current State of Peer Learning in Radiology: A Survey of ACR Members.

PURPOSE: Peer learning (PL) programs seek to improve upon the limitations of score-based peer review and incorporate modern approaches to improve patient care. The aim of this study was to further understand the landscape of PL among members of the ACR in the first quarter of 2022. METHODS: Members of the ACR were surveyed to evaluate the incidence, current practices, perceptions, and outcomes of PL in radiology practice. The survey was administered via e-mail to 20,850 ACR members. The demographic and practice characteristics of the 1,153 respondents (6%) were similar to those of the ACR radiologist membership and correspond to a normal distribution of the population of radiologists and can therefore be described as representative of that population. Therefore, the error range for the results from this survey is ±2.9% at a 95% confidence level. RESULTS: Among the total sample, 610 respondents (53%) currently use PL, and 334 (29%) do not. Users of PL are younger (mode age ranges, 45-54 years for users and 55-64 years for nonusers; P < .01), more likely to be female (29% vs 23%, P < .05), and more likely to practice in urban settings (52% vs 40%, P = .0002). Users of PL feel that it supports an improved culture of safety and wellness (543 of 610 [89%]) and fosters continuous improvement initiatives (523 of 610 [86%]). Users of PL are more likely than nonusers to identify learning opportunities from routine clinical practice (83% vs 50%, P < .00001), engage in programming inclusive of more team members, and implement more practice improvement projects (P < .00001). PL users' net promoter score of 65% strongly suggests that users of PL are highly likely to recommend the program to colleagues. CONCLUSIONS: Radiologists across a breadth of radiology practices are engaged in PL activities, which are perceived to align with emerging principles of improving health care and enhance culture, quality, and engagement.

The Pre-Radiology Internship: Room for Improvement?

BACKGROUND: A clinical internship is currently required by the American Board of Radiology prior to Radiology residency. The purpose of this investigation is to evaluate practicing radiologists' perspectives on the value of the internship and their recommendations for optimization. METHODS: A five-minute online survey was distributed via email to practicing radiologist members of the American College of Radiology. RESULTS: A total of 566 completed responses (11.3% response rate) were received. Most respondents agreed that their internship was essential for improving non-radiology clinical knowledge (84%) and affirming their decision to become a radiologist (74%). Most respondents (59%) disagree that the one-year internship before residency should be eliminated. Most (53%) of the radiologists in an academic practice agreed that internship should be integrated into Radiology residency. If radiologists were to redesign the internship ("PreRad Internship"), a majority of the respondents would include training in other medical specialties (71%), working along technologists (55%) and informatics/AI/computer science (54%). While the greatest proportion (50%) of interventional radiologists reported a Surgery internship would be the most beneficial for their primary subspecialty (50%), diagnostic radiologists most commonly (27%) reported the PreRad Internship would be the most beneficial. The greatest proportions of Abdominal-, Breast-, and Neuroradiology-trained respondents reported a PreRad Internship would be the most beneficial internship for their primary field of subspecialty Radiology practice (32%, 36%, and 33%, respectively). CONCLUSION: The internship before Radiology residency offers some benefits but could be further optimized. There is support from practicing radiologists for a redesigned, more Radiology-specific PreRad Internship.

Maintenance of Certification in Radiology: Eliciting Radiologist Preferences Using a Discrete Choice Experiment.

OBJECTIVE: To quantitatively assess radiologists' preferences for Maintenance of Certification (MOC) and Continuing Certification (CC) using a survey of attitudes and perceptions. METHODS: A questionnaire that assessed attitudes and perceptions and included a discrete choice or trade-off task was developed by ACR staff in conjunction with an independent market research agency and the Survey Subcommittee of the ACR Task Force on Certification in Radiology. The trade-off exercise was integrated into this methodology to better understand the underlying utilities or preferences of the components of MOC-CC among respondents and to better enable specific recommendations on how to optimize the current program. The survey was administered via e-mail to 17,305 ACR members. The demographic and practice characteristics of the 1,994 (11.5%) respondents were similar to the ACR radiologist membership and correspond to a normal distribution. At a 95% confidence level, with a margin of error 2.1%, we believe that the respondent population fairly reflects the actual population. RESULTS: Similar proportions judged the existing program as excellent or very good (36%), or fair or poor (35%), with 27% neutral. MOC-CC was perceived more often as excellent or very good by those who were grandfathered yet still participating in MOC, were in academic practice, were in an urban setting, were older, or had a role with the ABR. In contrast, MOC-CC was more often judged as fair or poor by those who were not grandfathered, were in private practice, were in a rural setting, or were younger. The current MOC-CC program is not well regarded by diplomates, with few showing preference or acceptability. The program's reception is most sensitive to the following attributes: absence or presence of a practice quality improvement requirement, Online Longitudinal Assessment content including or excluding general radiology in addition to one's specialty and inclusion or exclusion of self-assessment as part of the CME. CONCLUSION: ACR members diverged in their attitudes toward MOC, with differences among specific demographic and practice characteristics. The current package of features of MOC-CC was widely viewed as unsatisfactory, and a more optimal feature set arose from a simulation exercise.

Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) Participation in Radiation Oncology Practices - A Simple Survey.

PURPOSE: Our purpose was to survey nationwide radiation oncology practices on their participation in, burden of, and satisfaction with the Medicare Access and Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA) payment programs. METHODS AND MATERIALS: All radiation oncology practices accredited by a national specialty organization were invited to participate in a voluntary online survey from December 2018 to January 2019. Questions focused on participation in the Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) in 2017 and 2018, as by the time of this survey, radiation oncology did not yet have a specialty-specific advanced Alternative Payment Model. RESULTS: Of n = 705 solicited practices, n = 199 completed the survey for an overall response rate of 28.2%. Practices varied significantly in their duration of participation in MACRA programs, means of data submission, and reported improvement activities under MIPS. Forty-nine percent of respondents described being either somewhat or extremely dissatisfied with the ease of submitting measures and data in 2018. The estimated cost to the practices of compliance with MACRA was queried in bins; of users able to estimate the cost of compliance for 2018, the median reported bin was $10,001 to $20,000 (range, less than $1000-100,000 or more). CONCLUSIONS: The participation style in MACRA among radiation oncology practices varied substantially in the years 2017 and 2018. The Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services gave no precise estimates on the cost of compliance for MIPS, but estimated a $3019.47 cost of compliance with the mandated Radiation Oncology Alternative Payment Model in the 2020 Final Rule for selected practices. In this survey, respondents commonly reported the cost of compliance with MACRA significantly exceeded this estimate.

The Current State of Teleradiology Across the United States: A National Survey of Radiologists' Habits, Attitudes, and Perceptions on Teleradiology Practice.

PURPOSE: To explore the current state of teleradiology practice, defined as the interpretation of imaging examinations at a different facility from where the examination was performed. METHODS: A national survey addressing radiologists' habits, attitudes, and perceptions regarding teleradiology was distributed by e-mail to a random sample of ACR members in early 2019. RESULTS: Among 731 of 936 respondents who indicated a non-teleradiologist primary work setting, 85.6% reported performing teleradiology within the past 10 years and 25.4% reported that teleradiology represents a majority of their annual imaging volumes; 84.4% performed teleradiology for internal examinations and 45.7% for external examinations; 46.2% performed teleradiology for rural areas and 37.2% for critical access hospitals; 91.3% performed teleradiology during weekday normal business hours and 44.5% to 79.6% over evening, overnight, and weekend hours. In all, 76.9% to 86.2% perceived value from teleradiology for geographic, after-hours, and multispecialty coverage, as well as reduced interpretation turnaround times. The most common challenges for teleradiology were electronic health record access (62.8%), quality assurance (53.8%), and technologist proximity (48.4%). The strategy most commonly considered useful for improving teleradiology was technical interpretation standards (33.3%). Radiologists in smaller practices were less likely to perform teleradiology or performed teleradiology for lower fractions of work, were less likely to experience coverage advantages of teleradiology, and reported larger implementation challenges, particularly relating to electronic health records and prior examination access. CONCLUSION: Despite historic concerns, teleradiology is widespread throughout modern radiology practice, helping practices achieve geographic, after-hours, and multispecialty coverage; reducing turnaround times; and expanding underserved access. Nonetheless, quality assurance of offsite examinations remains necessary. IT integration solutions could help smaller practices achieve teleradiology's benefits.