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

• Type of Material: Article
• Authors: Ariadne K. DeSimone, Emory University; Andrew Post, Emory University; Richard Duszak Jr, Emory University; Phuong-Anh Duong, Emory University
• Language: English
• Date: 2018-07-01
• Publisher: Elsevier: 12 months
• Publication Version: Author Accepted Manuscript (After Peer Review)
• Copyright Statement: © 2018 Elsevier Inc.
• License: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International
• Final Published Version (URL): http://dx.doi.org/10.1067/j.cpradiol.2017.07.003
• Title of Journal or Parent Work: Current Problems in Diagnostic Radiology
• ISSN: 0363-0188
• Volume: 47
• Issue: 4
• Start Page: 233
• End Page: 237
• Grant/Funding Information: [Blinded] is supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health under Award number UL1TR000454.
• Keywords: Fluoroscopy; Internship and Residency; Time Factors; Cross-Sectional Studies; Hospitals, University; Radiologists; Education, Medical, Graduate; Clinical Competence; Retrospective Studies; Radiology, Interventional; Humans
• Research Categories: Health Sciences, Radiology; Health Sciences, Medicine and Surgery

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.