No abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted standard hospital operations and diagnostic radiology resident education at academic medical centers across the country. Deferment of elective surgeries and procedures coupled with a shift of resources toward increased inpatient clinical needs for the care of COVID-19 patients has resulted in substantially decreased imaging examinations at many institutions. Additionally, both infection control and risk mitigation measures have resulted in minimal on-site staffing of both trainees and staff radiologists at many institutions. As a result, residents have been placed in nonstandard learning environments, including working from home, engaging in a virtual curriculum, and participating in training sessions in preparation for potential reassignment to other patient care settings. Typically, for residents to gain the necessary knowledge, skills, and experience to practice independently upon graduation, radiology training programs must provide an optimal balance between resident education and clinical obligations. We describe our experience adapting to the challenges in educational interruptions and clinical work reassignments of 41 interventional and diagnostic radiology residents at a large academic center. We highlight opportunities for collaboration and teamwork in creatively adjusting and planning for the short and long-term impact of the pandemic on resident education. This experience shows how the residency educational paradigm was shifted during a pandemic and can serve as a template to address future disruptions.

Purpose The aim of this study was to assess the impact on radiology resident education due to the COVID-19 pandemic in order to inform future educational planning. Methods During a 10-week study period from March 16 to May 22, 2020, changes to educational block-weeks (BW) of first through fourth year residents (R1-4) were documented as disrupted in the setting of the COVID-19 pandemic. The first 5 weeks and the second 5 weeks were evaluated separately for temporal differences. Overall and mean disrupted BW per resident were documented. Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used to assess pairwise differences between classes with Bonferroni-adjusted P -values, as well as differences in the early versus later phase of the pandemic. Results Of 373 BW, 56.6% were assigned to virtual curriculum, 39.4% radiology clinical duties, 2.9% illness, and 1.1% reassignment. Scheduling intervention affected 6.2 ± 2.3 (range 1-10) mean BW per resident over the 10-week study period. The R3 class experienced the largest disruption, greater than the R2 classes, and statistically significantly more than the R1 and R4 classes (both P < 0.05). The second half of the pandemic caused statistically significantly more schedule disruptions than the first half ( P = 0.009). Discussion The impact of COVID-19 pandemic varied by residency class year, with the largest disruption of the R3 class and the least disruption of the R4 class. To optimize future educational opportunities, shifting to a competency-based education paradigm may help to achieve proficiency without extending the length of the training program.

Problem Clinician educators have realized the value not only of assigning teaching roles to medical students but also of offering explicit training in how to teach effectively. Despite this interest in the development of medical students’ teaching skills, formal teaching instruction and opportunities for practice are lacking. Approach To encourage medical student interest in teaching, the authors developed and implemented a medical student teaching competition (MSTC) at Emory University School of Medicine during the summers of 2014, 2015, and 2016. Each year, eight student finalists were each paired with a physician “teaching coach” and given one month to prepare for the MSTC. During the competition, each finalist delivered an eight-minute presentation to a panel of seven physician and resident judges. The authors describe the development, implementation, and assessment of the MSTC. Outcomes Approximately 150 medical students and faculty members attended the MSTC each year. The students in attendance felt that the MSTC made them more likely to seek out opportunities to learn how to teach effectively and to practice teaching. Additionally, some students are now more interested in learning about a career in academic medicine than they were before the MSTC. Next Steps Given the need for more formal initiatives dedicated to improving the teaching skills of doctors-in-training, including medical students, innovative solutions such as the MSTC may enhance a medical school’s existing curriculum and encourage student interest in teaching. The MSTC model may be generalizable to other medical schools.

No abstract

Trainees may add value to patient care by decreasing addendum rates in radiology reports.

To evaluate differences in fluoroscopy time (FT) for common vascular access and gastrointestinal procedures performed by radiology trainees vs faculty radiologists. Report information was extracted for all 17,966 index fluoroscopy services performed by trainees or faculty, or both from 2 university hospitals over 66 months. Various vascular access procedures (eg, peripherally inserted central catheters [PICCs] and ports) and gastrointestinal fluoroscopy procedures (eg, upper gastrointestinal and contrast enema studies) were specifically targeted. Statistical analysis was performed. FT was recorded in 17,549 of 17,966 reports (98%) The 1393 procedures performed by nonphysician providers or transitional year interns were excluded. Residents, fellows, and faculty were primary operators in 5066, 6489, and 4601 procedures, respectively. Average FT (in seconds) for resident and fellow services, respectively, was less than that of faculty only for PICCs (75 and 101 vs 148, P < 0.01). For all other procedures, average FT of trainee services was greater than that for faculty. This was statistically significant (P < 0.05) for fellows vs faculty port placement (121 vs 87), resident vs faculty small bowel series (130 vs 96), and both resident and fellow vs faculty esophagram procedures (143 and 183 vs 126 ). FT for residents was significantly less than that for fellows only for PICCs (75 vs 101, P < 0.01). For most, but not all, fluoroscopy procedures commonly performed by radiology trainees, FT is greater than that for procedures performed by faculty radiologists. Better awareness and understanding of such differences may aid training programs in developing benchmarks, protocols, and focused teaching in the safe use of fluoroscopy for patients and operators.

No abstract