RESUMO
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a pilot artificial intelligence (AI) certificate program in aiding radiology trainees to develop an understanding of the evolving role and application of artificial intelligence in radiology. A secondary objective was set to determine the background of residents that would most benefit from such training. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a prospective pilot study involving 42 radiology residents at two separate residency programs who participated in the Radiological Society of North America Imaging AI Foundational Certificate course over a four-month period. The course consisted of 6 online modules that contained didactic lectures followed by end-of-module quizzes to assess knowledge gained from these lectures. Pre- and post-course assessments were conducted to evaluate the residents' knowledge and skills in AI. Additionally, a post-course survey was performed to assess participants' overall satisfaction with the course. RESULTS: All participating residents completed the certificate program. The mean pre-course assessment score was 37 %, which increased to 73 % after completing the modules (p < 0.001). 74 % (31/42) endorsed the belief the course improved familiarity with artificial intelligence in radiology. Residency program, residency year, and reported prior familiarity with AI were not found to influence pre-course score, post-course score, nor score improvement. 57 % (24/42) endorsed interest in pursuing further certification in AI. CONCLUSION: Our pilot study suggests that a certificate course can effectively enhance the knowledge and skills of radiology residents in the application of AI in radiology. The benefits of such a course can be found regardless of program, resident year, and self-reported prior resident understanding of radiology in AI.
RESUMO
DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM: Streamlining communication between radiology and referring services is vital to ensure appropriate care with minimal delays. Increased subspecialization has led to compartmentalization of the radiology department with many physicians working in disparate areas. At our hospital, we anecdotally noted that a significant portion of incoming phone calls were misdirected to the wrong workstations. This resulted in wasted time, unnecessary interruptions, and delays in care because the referring clinicians could not efficiently navigate the radiology department staffing structure. Our quality improvement project involved developing a web-based tool allowing the emergency department (ED) to more efficiently contact the appropriate radiology desk and reduce misdirected phone calls. INSTITUTIONAL APPROACH EMPLOYED TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEM: Surveys were sent to radiology residents and ED providers (attendings, residents, physician assistants) to assess how often phone calls were misdirected to the wrong radiology station. Radiology residents were asked which stations received the most misdirected phone calls, and what station the caller was often looking for. ED providers were asked which stations they intended when they were told they called the wrong station, and a series of questions in the survey assessed their knowledge of commonly called radiology station (Plain Film, CT Body, Ultrasound, Neuoradiology, Pediatrics, and Overnight Desk). ED and radiology physicians worked together to design a simple, easily accessed web-based tool that allowed the ED clinicians to determine which station should be called during for each hour of the day, which integrated differences in staffing by radiology throughout the day. After the tool had been implemented for 8 months, surveys were again sent to radiology residents and ED clinicians asking the same questions as before to assess for any significant change in response. Additional questions were added to the ED survey to assess awareness of the new tool. DESCRIPTION OF OUTCOMES IN CHANGE OF PRACTICE: An interactive, easily updated schedule with optimal contact numbers was made available through the ED intranet. The design allowed for easy modification of contact numbers over time to accommodate changes in coverage location or staffing models. Prior to implementation contact information was presented on a static screen, which was unable to be changed and included multiple incorrect and defunct numbers. Additionally, contact defaulted to a general radiology pager, which was carried by a resident only responsible for plain films for most of the day. Numbers included in the new intranet tool were all pertinent reading room stations, all scheduling desks, and all technologist workspaces. Different schedules were provided for weekdays and weekends. Initial survey results showed that prior to the intervention, 74% of radiology residents said they received misdirected phone calls at least twice a day, and 57.9% of ED respondents reached the wrong recipient at least once per day. Frequencies of misdirected calls dropped to 58.4% of radiology residents (P = 0.37) and 17.9% of ED respondents (P < 0.01) on follow-up surveys 8 months after the tool was established. After establishing the new tool, 82.1% of ED respondents were aware of the new intranet contact tool and were using it to contact radiology. On the series of questions assessing ED respondents' knowledge of radiology numbers, over 50% of respondents knew the correct answer or answered using the call sheet after implementation; this resulted in statistically significant increases in accuracy for Body, Neuroradiology, and Pediatric radiology stations. Furthermore, with the exception of ED plain films, there was a statistically significant reduction in number of responses who said the general radiology pager should be called for reads. Fifty percent of radiology residents believed there was a reduction in the number of misdirected phone calls from the ED with this tool. CONCLUSION, LIMITATIONS, AND DESCRIPTIONS OF FUTURE DIRECTIONS: Our tool was successful in accomplishing multiple goals. First, over 80% of ED respondents adopted the new tool. Second, the number of misdirected phone calls based on the subjective perception of ED respondents and radiology residents was reduced. Third, we objectively improved the ED respondents' behavior pattern in contacting the radiology department by either calling the correct number using the call tool, and by reducing the number of respondents who use the pager. Going forward, we hope to be able to expand use of this tool throughout the hospital in order to provide more timely and efficient care with other services by streamlining access between referring services and the appropriate radiology recipients.
