Radiology Trainee vs Faculty Radiologist Fluoroscopy Time for Imaging-Guided Procedures: A Retrospective Study of 17,966 Reports Over a 5.5-Year Period

Abstract

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.

Fluoroscopy: An essential diagnostic modality in the age of high-resolution cross-sectional imaging

“…This is particularly a challenge when many fluoroscopic examinations are performed by trainees. In a retrospective analysis of 17966 examinations over 5.5 years, trainees had significantly more radiation exposure than that of faculty[ 5 ]. The investigators also felt that better awareness and understanding of that discrepancy may aid training programs in developing benchmarks, protocols, and focused teaching in the safe use of fluoroscopy for patients and operators.…”