Working from home during the COVID-19 pandemic: surveys of the Society for Pediatric Radiology and the Society of Chiefs of Radiology at Children’s Hospitals

Abstract

Background Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, some pediatric radiologists have shifted to working from home; the long-term ramifications for pediatric radiologists and departments have not yet been defined. Objective To characterize experiences of working from home associated with the COVID-19 pandemic and guide expectations after the pandemic is controlled, via separate surveys of Society for Pediatric Radiology (SPR) and Society of Chiefs of Radiology at Children’s Hospitals (SCORCH) members. Materials and methods Two separate surveys were conducted. In the first, SPR members were surveyed Jan. 11 through Feb. 8, 2021. The response rate was 17.0% (255 of 1,501). Survey questions included demographics, information on the ability to work from home and subjective experiences ranked on a scale of 0 to 10. The survey enabled segregation and comparison of responses between those with and without home PACS. In the second survey, SCORCH members were surveyed Dec. 8, 2020, through Jan. 8, 2021. The response rate was 51.5% (51/99). Survey questions included the logistics of working from home, technical specifications and the expectations on clinical duties performed from home. The Wilcoxon rank test was used to determine statistical significance of compared variables between respondents with and without home PACS in SPR members, and expectations between SPR and SCORCH members. Descriptive statistics summarized demographic questions and free text responses. Results The majority of member respondents (81.2%, 207/255) had a home PACS and most departments provided home PACS to faculty (94.1%, 48/51). Overall, radiologists who could work from home were satisfied with their ability to work from home (mean rating: 8.3/10) and were significantly more satisfied than predicted by those without home PACS (5.9/10, P <0.0001). Respondents overwhelmingly indicated they were less able to teach trainees (mean rating: 2.7/10) and had decreased emotional engagement (mean rating: 4.4/10), but had improved research productivity and cognitive ability for research when working from home (mean rating for both: 5.3/10). Regarding the expectations of the ability to work from home after no longer needing to address the pandemic, department chairs generally favored fewer rotations from home, with 97.9% (47/48) indicating working from home should be 60% or fewer assignments, compared with 84.1% (164/195) of individual radiologists ( P =0.071). Conclusions Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a shift to working from home using PACS. Results of these SPR and SCORCH member surveys can help inform future decisions regarding pediatric radiologists working from home once the pandemic has been controlled. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00247-022-05299-6.

Working from home: Changes in radiologist reporting behavior in response to the COVID-19 pandemic

“…Other studies also showed similar results. 10,14,15 However, our data showed a different result. Once the pandemic was under control, activity on the off-site workstations returned to prepandemic levels ( p > 0.05).…”

Evidence for an adverse impact of remote readouts on radiology resident productivity: Implications for training and clinical practice

“…In contrast to these studies, all our residents were on-site and in the reading room. Our data are supported by subjective evidence from surveys of both radiology faculty and trainees [15,21,23], with a consensus opinion that remote work negatively impacts education. In a survey conducted by Seghers et al, which compared the experiences of radiology faculty working remotely versus on-site, most respondents rated their ability to teach trainees as significantly decreased, with an average rating of 2.7 out of 10 on a scale where 0 represents the maximum diminishment of the work experience when working from home compared to in-hospital [15].…”

“…Our data are supported by subjective evidence from surveys of both radiology faculty and trainees [15,21,23], with a consensus opinion that remote work negatively impacts education. In a survey conducted by Seghers et al, which compared the experiences of radiology faculty working remotely versus on-site, most respondents rated their ability to teach trainees as significantly decreased, with an average rating of 2.7 out of 10 on a scale where 0 represents the maximum diminishment of the work experience when working from home compared to in-hospital [15]. Similarly, the results of a recent survey by the American Alliance of Academic Chief Residents [21], could be considered a referendum on the efficacy of remote learning: a supermajority (74%) of chief residents reported that remote readouts were significantly less effective when conducted in-person.…”

“…The interim reduction of case volumes was likely detrimental to trainee education, as case volumes are known to correlate with radiology resident performance in the reading room and on board exams [11,12]. However, while institutional volumes have since normalized, remote readouts have persisted in order to comply with social distancing regulations and to address radiology staffing needs; furthermore, as part of a broader shift towards telemedicine throughout medical practice [13], remote readouts are expected to continue in the future [14,15].…”

Imaging volumes during COVID-19: A Victorian health service experience

“…Radiology services have also seen significant changes in workflow across modalities and a reduction in imaging volumes[ 6 - 8 ]. For example, departments were re-configured to separate COVID-19 patients from non-infected patients, segregation of staff to reduce infection transmission, increased demand for PPE, radiologists reporting from home, and expansion of video conferencing use[ 5 , 9 ]. For patients presenting to the emergency department, general radiography was primarily used due to its accessibility, availability and low radiation levels.…”