ACR white paper: task force on timing of oral boards in diagnostic radiology.

The direction that the American Board of Radiology intends to follow relative to the diagnostic radiology oral board examination has risen quickly up the list of fundamental challenges for the radiology community. The formation of an ACR task force to study these changes was necessary, because this issue carries a high stake for the future of the profession and the patients we serve. After a careful review of the potential impacts, the committee discovered that consensus would be difficult to achieve relative to the merits of these changes. Accordingly, this white paper is focused objectively on the potential impacts on radiologists, practices, academic institutions, the ACR itself, and the ACR's membership. It is suggested that these concepts be used as starting points for future discussion and consideration of potential action.

The radiologist assistant: what radiologists need to know now.

States are increasingly considering legislative and regulatory avenues to establish the role of radiologist assistants (RAs) under current state medical practice acts or state radiation control regulatory programs. It is critical that radiology practices be cautious to comply with federal and state laws and regulations to ensure that these advanced practice professionals provide the appropriate services under the appropriate level of supervision. For quality-of-care reasons, the ACR remains concerned about the scope of practice of radiology practitioner assistants and some misinformation that has spread to state officials about the assistants' role in radiology practice. Another potential source of confusion may be the fact that physician assistants and nurse practitioners are being increasingly used in many areas of health care (including radiology) and may derive delegated authority (from physicians) to perform services that physicians determine nurse practitioners or physician assistants to be qualified to perform. The authors in particular emphasize current federal and state legislative activities and describe possible exposure and risks associated with the extension of the scope of practice by radiologic technologists without commensurate changes in state statutes and regulations.

When does expert witness testimony constitute a violation of the ACR Code of Ethics? The role of the ACR Committee on Ethics.

The ACR established the Committee on Ethics in 1997. As outlined in a prior article in JACR, the committee reviews allegations that an ACR member violated the Code of Ethics. One type of complaint is that an ACR member provided biased or inaccurate expert medical testimony. This article describes how the committee reviews expert witness complaints, decides whether to investigate them, and in some cases imposes disciplinary sanctions against a member.

An overview of the ACR Committee on Ethics: from hospital contracts to expert witness testimony.

Professional medical ethics has challenged physicians since time immemorial. Difficult questions about whether physicians appropriately interact with patients, staff members, and their medical colleagues seldom yield ready answers. Like other professional societies, the ACR offers guidance for its members on medical ethics issues. This article discusses how the ACR Committee on Ethics serves educational and investigative and disciplinary roles. The committee has authored and contributed to articles and other resources on such topics as physician-patient communication, informed consent, and ethics training for residents. It also has received complaints that a member's conduct allegedly violated the ACR's Code of Ethics. Many recent complaints have alleged that a member failed to provide nonpartisan and accurate expert medical testimony in a legal proceeding. The committee carefully screens each complaint and has established a process for investigating and deciding whether the testimony has violated the code.