127 Years of New Orleans Radiology: The Evolution of Practice and Those Who Led It.

The history of New Orleans radiology helps us understand how innovative medical ideas are transmitted and adopted and how the specialty evolved to incorporate these new ideas. As radiology became a required component of medical practice, additional expertise was needed. This resulted in the need for standardized specialized training and the necessity for some form of certification. New Orleans radiologists have always been involved in these American Board of Radiology efforts and also have held leadership positions in other national radiology organizations. The practice of radiology evolved from photographers being employees to physicians becoming members of a unique specialty with practice ownership interests. Radiologists united to form large practice groups and joined professional associations to share technological innovations as well as ensure a culture of professional collegiality. In New Orleans, organizations and events such as the New Orleans Radiology Society, the Spring Roentgen Conference, and the New Orleans Ultrasound Association were organized. Local radiologists who directed these efforts also participated on boards of many national radiologic organizations and helped advance the science of radiology. As the financial complexity and political stresses of radiology practice increased, groups merged, with a resultant decrease in individual autonomy and an increase in radiologist burnout. This has directly and indirectly resulted in many radiologists becoming employees as they were in the early days of New Orleans radiology.

The Early History of New Orleans Radiology and Its Practitioners.

Wilhelm Roentgen's discovery of the x-ray in late 1895 was relatively quickly shared with the New Orleans community through reports published in 1896 in local newspapers and medical journals. Radiology became popularized through public demonstrations organized by local proponents and was open to both the lay and medical communities. The first clinical x-ray equipment in New Orleans was installed at Charity Hospital in 1896 within the Department of Surgery, and the first examination was performed on December 23, 1896. Initially, those particularly interested in the x-ray phenomenon were photographers and physicists interested in electricity. X-rays were a curiosity, and entrepreneurs set up studios for x-ray photographs and advertised in local newspapers. Early clinical uses were the localization of foreign bodies, particularly bullets, and the evaluation of bones for fractures and other abnormalities. The fluoroscope was quickly adopted by roentgenologists as a faster and easier method for obtaining medical diagnosis but with the disadvantage of the absence of a permanent record. By the early 1910s, the use of x-rays in clinical medicine had been firmly adopted.

Medical workforce in the United States.

This section focuses on the professional workforce comprised of the primary medical specialties that utilize ionizing radiation in their practices. Those discussed include the specialties of radiology and radiation oncology, as well as the subspecialties of radiology, namely diagnostic radiology, interventional radiology, nuclear radiology, and nuclear medicine. These professionals provide essential health care services, for example, the interpretation of imaging studies, the provision of interventional procedures, radionuclide therapeutic treatments, and radiation therapy. In addition, they may be called on to function as part of a radiologic emergency response team to care for potentially exposed persons following radiation events, for example, detonation of a nuclear weapon, nuclear power plant accidents, and transportation incidents. For these reasons, maintenance of an adequate workforce in each of these professions is essential to meeting the nation's future needs. Currently, there is a shortage for all physicians in the medical radiology workforce.

Ultrasound Stratification of Hepatic Steatosis Using Hepatorenal Index.

Hepatorenal index (HRI) has been shown to be an effective, noninvasive ultrasound tool to screen patients for those with or without >5% hepatic steatosis. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to further refine this HRI tool in order to stratify patients according to their degree of liver steatosis and give direction as to which patients should undergo random liver biopsy. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of 267 consecutive patients from 2015 to 2017 who had abdominal ultrasounds and a subsequent random liver biopsy within one month. The HRI was calculated and compared with the percent steatosis as assessed by histology. RESULTS: An HRI of ≤1.17 corresponds with >95% positive predictive value of ≤5% steatosis. Between HRI values 1.18 and 1.39, performance of steatosis prediction is mixed. However, for values <1.37 there is an increased likelihood of steatosis ≤5% and likewise the opposite for values >1.37. An HRI of ≥1.4 corresponds with >95% positive predictive value of ≥10% steatosis. CONCLUSION: HRI is an accurate noninvasive tool to quantify degree of steatosis and guide who should undergo random liver biopsy, potentially significantly reducing the total number of necessary liver biopsies.

Medical Student Ultrasound Education: The Radiology Chair Weighs In.

ABSTRACT: To assess the radiology department chairs' opinions concerning current status and plans for teaching ultrasound to medical students, the American College Taskforce on Radiology Ultrasound Education, commissioned by the American College of Radiology, distributed a survey to 142 radiology chairs and a medical school dean subgroup.The response rate was 30% (42/142), and 76% indicated ultrasound was currently part of the medical student curriculum. In preclinical years, radiology involvement was only 6.4%. During clinical years, radiology led ultrasound education with 51.7% in general and 82.9% in elective rotations. Regarding actual content, top 4 results were evenly distributed between learning hands-on scanning (81.1%), diagnostic use of ultrasound (75.7%), anatomy/pathology (75.7%), and ultrasound guidance for procedures (54.0%). Educational leaders in preclinical courses were emergency medicine (72.7%) followed by radiology (45.4%) physicians. During clinical years, leaders were radiology (52.6%) and emergency medicine (47.4%) physicians. Most chairs stated that knowledge of diagnostic ultrasound should be mandatory (76.2%), stressing the importance of teaching the diagnostic capabilities and uses of ultrasound as the primary goal (78.8%). Perceived barriers to implementation were evenly distributed between lack of space in the curriculum (55.6%), lack of faculty (48.2%), lack of resources (44.4%), and lack of institutional support (40.7%). The American College Taskforce on Radiology Ultrasound Education survey shows that radiology's role in ultrasound undergraduate education occurs almost exclusively during clinical years, and the chairs voice a desire to improve upon this role. Barriers include both intradepartmental (faculty and resources) and institutional (curricular) factors.

Differential rates of progression of low-grade carotid stenosis detected by follow-up ultrasound: A single institution experience.

OBJECTIVES: The growing body of evidence suggesting that lifestyle changes and aggressive medical management reduce the risk of strokes in patients with carotid stenosis has fostered interest in noninvasive screening. The objective of this study was to develop recommendations for follow-up carotid ultrasound surveillance of patients with <60% carotid stenosis. METHODS: This retrospective observational cohort study includes 2956 patients seen between August 1998 and March 2015 in 4440 visits. Data analysis was restricted to 7710 carotid ultrasounds. Primary outcome was progression of carotid stenosis as defined by the "bulb" method: baseline stenosis of 0%-39% progressed to 40%-59% on subsequent examination, baseline stenosis of 0%-39% progressed to ≥60%, or baseline of 40%-59% progressed to ≥60%. Progression was estimated using Cox proportional hazard ratios and the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: More than 10% of patients progressed in the 40%-59% baseline group within 12 months compared to 78 months for the 0%-39% baseline group. Patients who progressed had a higher proportion of peripheral vascular disease, and current/former smoking compared to those who did not. While there were statistically significant correlations between medication classes and comorbidities, none of the medications studied appeared to slow carotid stenosis progression. CONCLUSIONS: In our experience, for patients with a 0%-39% carotid stenosis, follow-up examination should be performed at 6-year intervals. For patients with 40%-59% carotid stenosis, follow-up should be obtained annually to identify those who progress to a level requiring intervention. Future studies should examine whether study findings can be replicated using other approaches for determining carotid stenosis.

The Late-Career Radiologist: Options and Opportunities.

More than 25% of the present radiology workforce, or nearly 8300 radiologists, are actively practicing late-career radiologists. While these individuals could decide to retire from active practice, their continued presence in the workforce helps to maintain adequate and appropriate patient imaging services. To ensure their continued participation, issues important to all late-career radiologists need to be appreciated, discussed, and addressed. These issues include call-duty requirements, compensation, physical and cognitive health, and organized phase-out programs. The gamut of these issues is addressed in this review article. ©RSNA, 2018.

Comparison of Utilization of the Family and Medical Leave Act in Radiology Practices Between 2015 and 2016.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to assess utilization of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) in radiology practices in 2016 and compare with 2015 utilization. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Practice of Radiology Environment Database was used to identify practice leaders, and these leaders were asked to complete the annual American College of Radiology Commission on Human Resources workforce survey. The 2017 survey, which asked about 2016 experiences, again included questions about the number of radiologists in each practice who took FMLA, reasons why, and how absences were covered. RESULTS: Twenty-six percent (477/1811) of practice leaders responded to the survey. Of these respondents, 73% (346/477) answered FMLA questions, and 23% (80/346) of those answered affirmatively that a radiologist in their practice had taken FMLA leave in 2016 (previously 15% in 2015; p = 0.15). The reasons for FMLA leave included taking care of a newborn or adopted child (57%, previously 49%; p = 0.26), personal serious health condition (35%, previously 42%; p = 0.31), caring for an immediate family member (8%, unchanged), and engaging in active military duty (< 1%, unchanged). Although more women (72%) than men (32%) took FMLA leave for the first reason (p < 0.01), more men (63%) than women (18%) took FMLA leave for the second (p < 0.01), and there was no significant difference between women (10%) and men (5%) taking leave to care for an immediate family member (p = 0.18). Most practices (80%) again made no workforce changes to cover absences due to FMLA leave (previously 82%). CONCLUSION: Utilization of FMLA leave in radiology practices in 2016 was similar to that in 2015 and represents the beginning of longitudinal accrual of data on this important topic for both male and female radiologists.

Musculoskeletal Injuries Affecting Radiologists According to the 2017 ACR Human Resources Commission Workforce Survey.

Practice leaders surveyed in the 2017 ACR Human Resources Commission workforce survey reported that 25% of the radiologists or radiation oncologists they supervised had neck pain, 32% had low back pain, and 16% were dealing with a repetitive stress injury. The prevalence rates of these musculoskeletal ailments among radiologists and radiation oncologists were consistent with those reported in the literature in other populations. However, these prevalence rates may be underestimated because practice leaders, not the radiologists themselves, were surveyed, and the leaders may not be aware of all injuries.

Recommendations for Low-Grade Carotid Stenosis Follow-up Based on a Single-Institution Database.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine the incidences and rates of progression of varying degrees of carotid stenosis that do not require intervention according to the Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis Study, the European Carotid Surgery Trial, and the North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial, and from this information, to provide evidence-based recommendations for follow-up imaging. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of all carotid ultrasound examinations performed at a single institution from January 1995 through April 2015. Examinations following endarterectomy or stenting were excluded. Stenoses were classified by a modification of the criteria of Bluth et al (Radiographics 1988; 8:487-506). A Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed for stenosis progression and to provide information for follow-up recommendations. RESULTS: Most of the carotid arteries (91.6%) reviewed for this study showed 1% to 39% stenosis. However, only 6.8% of carotid arteries with 1% to 39% stenosis progressed compared to 38.9% of carotid arteries with 40% to 59% stenosis. A table of evidence-based follow-up recommendations is provided for patients with varying levels of stenosis. CONCLUSIONS: We provide evidence-based follow-up recommendations for patients who have low degrees of carotid stenosis. Different degrees of carotid stenosis progress at different rates and therefore should be followed at different intervals. Additionally, the most patients in our database showed 1% to 39% stenosis and did not have any follow-up imaging, suggesting that carotid ultrasound may not be overused for low degrees of stenosis.

The 2017 ACR Workforce Survey: Management Trends and Strategic Needs.

The 2017 ACR Workforce Survey included questions for group leaders about management trends and areas in which they need more help from the ACR. Respondents identified point of care ultrasound as the area in which they need the most help. Most respondents gave positive or neutral answers regarding their role in the management of radiology allied health professionals and radiology information technology, and most believed their role and influence in decision making in the organization were not decreasing.

The 2017 ACR Commission on Human Resources Workforce Survey.

PURPOSE: The ACR Commission on Human Resources conducts an annual workforce survey to determine the makeup of the radiology workforce and to identify potential plans for hiring new staff in an attempt to understand our profession better. METHODS: The Practice of Radiology Environment Database group leaders were asked to complete an electronic survey regarding the makeup of their present workforce by subspecialty, as well as the numbers and types of subspecialists hired in 2016 and the numbers and types of subspecialists expected to be hired in 2017 and 2020. They were also asked about midlevel practitioners. RESULTS: Twenty-six percent of practice leaders (477) representing 11,056 radiologists, 33% of all practicing radiologists in the United States, responded to the survey. The workforce distribution by practice type and radiologists' ages has been relatively stable since 2012. Six percent of the practicing workforce is over the age of 65 years. Sixteen percent of radiologists work part-time, and 21.5% of radiologists are female. The survey results indicate that 1,569 to 2,037 radiologists were hired in 2016. In 2017, 1,826 to 2,370 new job opportunities are anticipated, a 14.1% increase compared with 2016. For 2017, the subspecialists most recruited will be neuroradiologists, general interventionalists, after-hours radiologists, and body imagers. Approximately 2,156 midlevel practitioners are presently working and supervised by radiologists. CONCLUSIONS: The 2017 ACR workforce study shows an optimistic picture and outlook for those seeking jobs as practicing radiologists in 2017. For practice leaders, the market will be much more competitive than it has been in past years.