Expected Trainee Interpretive Volumes and Potential Threats to Neuroradiology Program Viability: A Survey of Neuroradiology Fellowship Program Directors

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Nationally clinical volumes are rising, putting greater pressure on radiologists to read more and in turn jeopardizing the academic missions of many training programs. The purpose of this study was to survey neuroradiology fellowship program directors (PDs) to identify reasonable expected trainee and faculty interpretive volumes, common barriers to study interpretation, and threats to fellowship program viability.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was an institutional review board–approved survey study disseminated to neuroradiology fellowship PDs through the American Society of Neuroradiology. This Web-based survey included basic program information regarding practice setting, faculty size, fellowship size, and multiple questions related to interpretative volumes, barriers to study interpretation, threats to program viability, etc. Summary statistics were computed for count and rank variables. For survey questions by using ranking, cumulative ranks across all institutions were computed with a statistical ranking procedure based on Savage scores.

RESULTS: Forty-three of 85 PDs responded to the survey. Median daily interpretive expectations for fellows were 20 daily cases during the first 6 months of the year and 30 during the second 6 months. Median daily interpretive expectations for faculty working with fellows was 32 daily cases during the first 6 months of the year and 38.5 during the second 6 months. Telephone calls from technologists and referring clinicians and protocoling were identified as major barriers to interpreting studies. Perceived major threats to program viability included increasing case volumes, understaffing, and burnout.

CONCLUSIONS: Reasonable interpretive volumes determined by fellowship directors ranged between 20–30 daily cases for fellows and 32–38.5 daily cases for faculty working with fellows. Common barriers to interpretation were related to phone call interruptions and protocoling. Perceived major program viability threats remain centered on increasing clinical volumes and burnout.