Association Between Medical School Radiology Curricula and Application Rates to US Radiology Residency Programs

Tumor imaging instruction and assessment at chiropractic colleges in North America: a pilot study with implications for National Board of Chiropractic Examiners content

OBJECTIVE

This pilot study tested a survey instrument pertaining to the instruction and assessment of tumor imaging in chiropractic training programs. The secondary purpose was to gather data regarding credentials of lead instructors, textbook and resource use, and tumors taught and assessed.

METHODS

An electronic survey was distributed to lead tumor imaging instructors at all chiropractic colleges in the United States and Canada. A focus group of tumor imaging instructors was conducted to clarify ambiguous data.

RESULTS

Diplomate status with the American Chiropractic Board of Radiology was held by 87.5% of the instructor respondents. There were similarities in course content and assessment across institutions. A total of 26 tumors were considered clinically significant by more than 65% of instructors, 9 tumors were identified as not clinically significant by more than 65%, and 4 tumors were considered clinically significant by 35% to 65% of instructors. There was correlation between those instructors who evaluated on various tumors and those who feel it is important to evaluate such tumors (r_S = 0.94, p < .001). The focus group addressed the 4 equivocal tumors and recommended 3 be added to the list of clinically insignificant tumors.

CONCLUSION

The survey instrument is ready to be used to conduct a study of all clinical areas of the chiropractic curriculum. A total of 12 tumors were recommended for removal from National Board of Chiropractic Examiners tests. The authors recommend that the Academics Committee of the American Chiropractic Board of Radiology share information regarding learning libraries to allow for a richer learning experience across all campuses.

Assessing Medical Student Knowledge of Imaging Modality Selection Before and After a General Radiology Elective: A Comparison of MS-IIs, MS-IIIs, and MS-IVs

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Correct selection of imaging tests is essential f or clinicians but until recently has been largely neglected in medical education. How and when students acquire such non-interpretive skills are unknown. This study will assess student knowledge of imaging test selection before and after a general radiology elective.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between 2008 and 2015, an unannounced 13-item test was administered to second, third, and fourth-year students on the first and last days of the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine radiology elective. Scores (0–13) were based on the American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria. Pre- and posttest means were compared using paired samples t tests. Whether performance on the pretest and posttest differed by class year was assessed using analysis of variance and Kruskal-Wallis, respectively, and whether year was associated with posttest score after controlling for pretest score was assessed using analysis of covariance.

RESULTS

Posttest means were significantly higher than pretest means for students in all years (P values <.0001). Pretest scores differed by year (F(2, 360) = 66.85, P <.0001): fourth-year students scored highest (mean = 9.96 of 13) and second-year students scored lowest (mean = 7.01 of 13). Posttest scores did not differ (χ2(2, 270) = 0.348, P = .841). Year in school had no independent effect on posttest score (F(2, 239) = 0.45, P = .637).

CONCLUSION

Knowledge of modality selection increases with clinical training, but room for improvement remains. A general radiology elective increases this knowledge. Second-year students improve most, suggesting that taking radiology early is efficient, but further research to evaluate retention of this knowledge is needed. Medical student education in radiology must increasingly recognize and address non-interpretive skills and intelligent imaging utilization.

A Resident Perspective on Adding Value as Radiologists

During the annual 46th annual American Alliance of Academic Chief Residents in Radiology (A(3)CR(2)) meeting in New Orleans, chief residents discussed the role of residents within American College of Radiology 3.0 campaign. Our discussion was directed toward the evolving role of fourth-year radiology residents and how we might improve their training to better prepare them to add value as both leaders and radiologists. The ideas resulting from our Problem Solving session were divided into three categories: clinical presence in the wards and subspecialty clinics; visibility to clinicians and patients; and the education of medical students, residents, and advanced practice clinicians to aid in realizing the long-term goals of Imaging 3.0.

Needs Assessment for Standardized Medical Student Imaging Education: Review of the Literature and a Survey of Deans and Chairs

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Medical imaging education often has limited representation in formal medical student curricula. Although the need for greater inclusion of radiology material is generally agreed on, the exact skillset that should be taught is less clear. The purpose of our study was to perform a needs assessment for a national radiology curriculum for medical students.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We analyzed data from previous unpublished portions of the American College of Radiology/Alliance of Medical Student Educators in Radiology survey of Deans and Radiology Chairs regarding prevalence of radiology curricular revisions, assessment tools, use of the American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria, and resources used in curriculum revision. We also performed a literature search through both PubMED and a general search engine (Google) to identify available resources for designing and implementing imaging curricula and curricular revisions.

RESULTS

Medical school deans and chairs reported a need for more overall radiology content; one of every six programs (15%) reported they had no recognized imaging curriculum. Of schools currently with imaging curricula, 82% have undergone revision in the last 10 years using a variety of different resources, but there is no universally agreed on guide or standard curriculum. The PubMED and Google searches identified only 23 and eight resources, respectively, suggesting a sizable deficit in available guidance; however, a single published medical student radiology curriculum is available through the Alliance of Medical Student Educators in Radiology.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a need, but few available resources, to guide educators in adding imaging content to medical school curricula. We postulate that a standardized national curriculum directed by a focused skillset may be useful to educators and could result in greater uniformity of imaging skills among graduating US medical students. A proposed skillset to guide a national curriculum in radiology is described.