Rebecca S. Lewis

A Portrait of Breast Imaging Specialists and of the Interpretation of Mammography in the United States

OBJECTIVE Because of the importance of breast imaging as a radiology subspecialty and concerns about malpractice, the purpose of our study is to provide a detailed portrait of breast imaging specialists, their professional activities and practices, and information on all radiologists who interpret mammograms. MATERIALS AND METHODS We analyzed data from the American College of Radiologys 2003 Survey of Radiologists, a large, stratified random sample survey that achieved a 63% response. Responses were weighted to make them representative of all radiologists in the United States. RESULTS Approximately 10% of all radiologists, or 2,700-2,800 radiologists, are breast imaging specialists, but 61% of radiologists interpret mammograms, and only approximately 30% of mammograms are interpreted by breast imaging specialists. Of radiologists who reported that breast imaging was their primary specialty, only 21% took a fellowship in the field (much lower than for other subspecialties), 59% spent > or = 50% of their clinical work time in the specialty, 82% interpret > or = 2,000 mammograms annually, and only 11% (also well below other subspecialties) report that the main subspecialty society (the Society of Breast Imaging) is one of the two most important professional organizations for them. On average, breast imaging specialists, like other radiologists, report that their workload is about as heavy as desired. Their level of enjoyment of radiology does not differ significantly from average. CONCLUSION Breast imaging appears not to be as strongly organized to raise awareness of and support for its problems as are other subspecialties. Although others find evidence of likely future problems, breast imaging specialists are not currently overworked or less satisfied in their profession than other radiologists, despite relatively low revenue generation and a particularly high risk of a malpractice lawsuit.

Radiology practices' use of external off-hours teleradiology services in 2007 and changes since 2003.

OBJECTIVE Our objective is to report patterns of utilization of external off-hours teleradiology services (EOTSs) in 2007 and changes since 2003. MATERIALS AND METHODS We analyzed non-individually identified data from the American College of Radiologys 2007 Survey of Member Radiologists and its 2003 Survey of Radiologists. Responses were weighted to be nationally representative of individual radiologists and radiology practices. We present descriptive statistics and multivariable regression analysis results on the use of EOTSs in 2007 and comparisons with 2003. RESULTS Overall, 44% of all radiology practices in the United States reported using EOTSs in 2007. These practices included 45% of all U.S. radiologists. Out-of-practice teleradiology had been used by 15% of practices in 2003. Regression analysis indicates that, other practice characteristics being equal, in 2007, primarily academic practices had lower odds of using EOTSs than private radiology practices. Also, large practices (>or= 30 radiologists) had lower odds of using EOTSs than practices with 15-29 radiologists. Small practices (1-10 radiologists) had high odds, but nonmetropolitan practices did not. There were no significant differences by geographic region of the United States. CONCLUSION Use of EOTSs was widespread by 2007, and it had been increasing rapidly in the preceding few years. Patterns of use were generally as might be expected except that nonmetropolitan practices did not have high odds of using EOTSs.

Frequency of Use of Imaging Tests in the Diagnosis of Pulmonary Embolism: Effects of Physician Specialty, Patient Characteristics, and Region

OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to ascertain whether clinical practice in diagnosing pulmonary embolism is consistent with recommendations in the literature and to explore variations in practice across site of care (e.g., emergency department), physician and patient characteristics, and geographic location. MATERIALS AND METHODS Medicare 5% research identifiable files were analyzed. The cases of patients with emergency department visits or inpatient stays for a diagnosis of pulmonary embolism or for symptoms related to pulmonary embolism (shortness of breath, chest pain, and syncope) were identified. We determined the number of patients who underwent each type of relevant imaging test and evaluated variations in the first non-chest-radiographic test by site of care and treating physician specialty. Using logistic regression, we studied variations in the use of common imaging tests, exploring variations associated with patient characteristics, physician specialty, site of care, and geographic location. RESULTS For patients in whom pulmonary embolism might have been suspected, the most common tests were echocardiography (26% of the patients), CT or CT angiography of the chest (11%), cardiac perfusion study (6.9%), and duplex ultrasound (7.3%). For patients with an inpatient diagnosis of pulmonary embolism, the most common tests were chest CT or CT angiography (49%), duplex ultrasound (18%), echocardiography (10.9%), and ventilation-perfusion scintigraphy (10.9%). For patients for whom pulmonary embolism might have been suspected, many large variations were found in practice patterns among physician specialties and geographic locations. There were fewer variations among patients with the inpatient diagnosis of pulmonary embolism. CONCLUSION Physician practice in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism is broadly consistent with recommendations. However, variations by physician specialty and geographic location may be evidence of inappropriate imaging.

Diagnostic Radiologists' Subspecialization and the New Final Board Examination

OBJECTIVE Recognizing that subspecialization can consist of concentration in multiple fields as well as in a single main field, we conducted this study to profile in detail the subspecialization of diagnostic radiologists in the United States in ways that illuminate issues related to the American Board of Radiology plan for a new final examination. MATERIALS AND METHODS We tabulated nonindividually identified data from the American College of Radiology 2003 Survey of Radiologists, a stratified random-sample mail survey with 1,924 responses and a 63% response rate. Respondents were guaranteed confidentiality. Responses were weighted to make them representative of all radiologists in the United States. RESULTS Sixty-nine percent of respondents reported specializing at least to a small extent. If concentration in a field is defined as spending 10% or more of clinical work time in the field, 51% of radiologists concentrated in one or two fields, 24% in three or four fields, and 21% in more than four fields. An examination covering a radiologists four most time-intensive fields would cover 80% of the clinical work of the median radiologist. However, the one fourth of radiologists whose work is most varied would have 40% or more not covered by the examination, but the one fourth with the most concentrated work would have 100% covered. CONCLUSION Most radiologists concentrate in a few fields, making the American Board of Radiology plan for an examination that covers four fields--or fewer, at an examinees discretion--a major step forward in recognizing the nature of current practice. Four fields, however, are too many for the practice patterns of many radiologists but too few for the practice patterns of a substantial minority. We offer for consideration more far-reaching reforms.

Comparison of Heel Ultrasound and Finger DXA to Central DXA in the Detection of Osteoporosis: Implications for Patient Management

The goal of the study was to investigate the potential discordance in patient management when a clinician assumes that a peripheral device is a diagnostic surrogate for central DXA in the detection and treatment of osteoporosis. Over a period of 2 mo, asymptomatic women seeking conventional central DXA evaluation for osteoporosis at a diagnostic imaging center were also evaluated with heel ultrasound and finger DXA peripheral imaging devices. T-Scores of -2.5 or less in screening examinations were used to evaluate the discordance between the two peripheral devices and central DXA in the identification of patients with osteoporosis. Higher T-score cutoffs (>-2.5) were also evaluated. Using central DXA as the standard for comparison, the sensitivity of heel ultrasound for screening cases was 0.34 and specificity was 0.92. For finger DXA, sensitivity was 0.23 and specificity was 0.92. Overall discordance between the peripheral devices and central DXA was 21% (heel) and 23% (finger). Heel ultrasound identified 7 out of every 22 osteoporotic patients diagnosed with central DXA. Finger DXA identified 5 out of every 22 osteoporotic patients. Using lower T-scores for the peripheral devices increased sensitivity but markedly increased discordance with DXA. The peripheral devices we studied cannot be considered equivalent surrogates for central DXA in the screening of asymptomatic women for osteoporosis.

The Performance of Outside Readings by Radiology Practices

OBJECTIVE The purpose of our study was to determine how many radiology practices perform outside readings, what characteristics affect the prevalence and volume of outside readings, and how practices are paid for outside readings. MATERIALS AND METHODS We analyzed data from the American College of Radiologys 2007 Survey of Radiologists, a stratified random sample e-mail and telephone survey. A total of 480 survey responses were evaluated; responses were weighted to make them representative of all U.S. radiology practices. We provide descriptive statistics and multivariable regression analysis results. RESULTS Overall, 40% of radiology practices in the United States performed outside readings in 2007. Outside readings constituted an average of 11% of the workload of these practices and 4% of the total workload of radiologists in the United States. Other practice characteristics being equal, academic practices, government practices, radiology units of multispecialty groups, and small practices had particularly low odds of performing outside readings. If they did perform outside readings, then, other practice characteristics being equal, small practices, solo practices, radiology units of multispecialty groups, practices in the main cities of large metropolitan areas, and those in nonmetropolitan areas had, on average, a relatively large portion of their workload consisting of outside readings. By far, the most common methods of payment were directly billing for the professional component or receiving a flat fee per study. CONCLUSION Outside readings were a common activity among radiology practices in 2007. There was substantial variability among practice types, sizes, and locations in whether practices performed outside readings and, if so, how much outside reading they did.

Trends in Work Hours and Vacation Time Among Radiologists in the United States

OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to describe recent trends in weekly work hours and annual vacation days among full-time radiologists in the United States with separate data for academic radiologists, radiologists in multispecialty groups, and radiologists in private practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS We tabulated non-individually identified responses from the American College of Radiology 1995, 2003, and 2007 surveys of radiologists. These stratified random sample surveys had, respectively, 2,025, 1,924, and 487 responses and response rates of 75%, 63%, and 20%. Responses were weighted to make them representative of all U.S. radiologists. Respondents were assured of confidentiality. RESULTS Mean weekly hours worked increased from 1995 to 2003 and from 2003 to 2007. The total increase was approximately 5 hours, or 10%. Mean vacation days also increased in both subperiods, from 27 in 1995 to 39 in 2007, yielding an approximately 5% decrease in days worked per year. The overall result was a mean increase of approximately 5% in annual work hours. In 2007, the 25th percentile of weekly hours was 45, and the 75th percentile was 55. The 25th percentile of annual vacation days was 25, and the 75th percentile was 50. Full-time radiologists responding about their own weekly hours reported, at the mean, working 10% more hours than they believed was the average for other full-time radiologists in the practice. CONCLUSION Weekly hours and annual vacation days both have increased. The percentiles give radiologists a basis for comparison with other radiologists. Radiologists apparently often overestimate their work hours relative to the hours of others in their practices. Misperceptions of this kind might give rise to friction in radiology practices.

Radiologists' Clinical Practice of Neuroimaging

PURPOSE Because of the importance of neuroimaging as a radiology subspecialty, the aim of this study was to provide a detailed portrait of the demographics, clinical activities, and practices of radiologists heavily involved in neuroimaging. METHODS The authors analyzed data from the ACRs 2003 Survey of Radiologists, a large, stratified random-sample survey in which respondents were guaranteed confidentiality. The survey achieved a 63% response rate, and responses were weighted to make them representative of all radiologists in the United States. RESULTS Three-fourths of US radiologists reported doing neuroradiology; 9% reported that neuroradiology was their main subspecialty, and 9% reported spending more than 50% of their clinical work time doing neuroradiology. Of these latter two categories, more than about 75% had certificates of added qualification (CAQs) in neuroradiology, and more than 80% had done neuroradiology fellowships. However, of those spending more than 50% of their clinical work time doing neuroradiology, 7% neither had CAQs nor had done fellowships in the field. One-fourth of radiologists with CAQs or who had done neuroradiology fellowships spent less than 30% of their clinical work time doing neuroradiology. One-third to one-half of neuroimaging was performed by radiologists not heavily involved in the field. Only 6% to 8% of radiologists heavily involved in the field were women, compared with 22% in other subspecialties. CONCLUSIONS Neuroimaging has the great strength of being a relatively well-integrated subspecialty in that a very large majority of those heavily involved in its practice have CAQs and did fellowships in the field. Among possible concerns are the relatively few women in the field and the apparent waste of expertise resulting from one-fourth of those with neuroradiology subspecialty training or certification being relatively little immersed in its practice.