Am I Ready to Be an Independent Neuroradiologist? Objective Trends in Neuroradiology Fellows' Performance during the Fellowship Year

O, Youssef PP, Khandelwal P, Wang QT, Grandhi R, Hanel R, Kellogg RT, Ortega-Gutierrez S, Sheth S, Nguyen TN, Szeder V, Hu YC, Yoo AJ, Tanweer O, Jankowitz B, Heit JJ, Williamson R, Kass-Hout T, Crowley RW, El-Ghanem M, Al-Mufti F. Factors Affecting Selection of TraineE for Neurointervention (FASTEN)

BACKGROUND AND IMPORTANCE

Neurointervention is a very competitive specialty in the United States due to the limited number of training spots and the larger pool of applicants. The training standards are continuously updated to ensure solid training experiences. Factors affecting candidate(s) selection have not been fully established yet. Our study aims to investigate the factors influencing the selection process.

METHODS

A 52-question survey was distributed to 93 program directors (PDs). The survey consisted of six categories: (a) Program characteristics, (b) Candidate demographics, (c) Educational credentials, (d) Personal traits, (e) Research and extracurricular activities, and (f) Overall final set of characteristics. The response rate was 59.1%. As per the programs' characteristics, neurosurgery was the most involved specialty in running the training programs (69%). Regarding demographics, the need for visa sponsorship held the greatest prominence with a mean score of 5.9 [standard deviation (SD) 2.9]. For the educational credentials, being a graduate from a neurosurgical residency and the institution where the candidate's residency training is/was scored the highest [5.4 (SD = 2.9), 5.4 (SD = 2.5), respectively]. Regarding the personal traits, assessment by faculty members achieved the highest score [8.9 (SD = 1)]. In terms of research/extracurricular activities, fluency in English had the highest score [7.2 (SD = 1.9)] followed by peer-reviewed/PubMed-indexed publications [6.4 (SD = 2.2)].

CONCLUSION

Our survey investigated the factors influencing the final decision when choosing the future neurointerventional trainee, including demographic, educational, research, and extracurricular activities, which might serve as valuable guidance for both applicants and programs to refine the selection process.

"Are They Listening, and Do They Find It Useful?"-Evaluation of Mid-Rotation Formative Subjective and Objective Feedback to Radiology Trainees

BACKGROUND

Residents commonly receive only end-of-rotation evaluations and thus are often unaware of their progress during a rotation. In 2021, our neuroradiology section instituted mid-rotation feedback in which rotating residents received formative subjective and objective feedback. The purpose of this study was to describe our feedback method and to evaluate if residents found it helpful.

METHODS

Radiology residents rotate 3-4 times on the neuroradiology service for 1-month blocks. At the midpoint of the rotation (2 weeks), 7-10 neuroradiology attendings discussed the rotating residents' subjective performance. One attending was tasked with facilitating this discussion and taking notes. Objective metrics were obtained from our dictation software. Compiled feedback was relayed to residents via email. A 16-question anonymous survey was sent to 39 radiology residents (R1-R4) to evaluate the perceived value of mid-rotation feedback. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were computed using logistic regression.

RESULTS

Sixty-nine percent (27/39) of residents responded to the survey; 92.6% (25/27) of residents reported receiving mid-rotation feedback in ≥50% of neuroradiology rotations; 92.3% (24/26) of residents found the subjective feedback helpful; 88.4% (23/26) of residents reported modifying their performance as suggested (100% R1-R2 vs 70% R3-R4; OR: 15.4 CI:1.26, >30.0);59.1% (13/22) of residents found the objective metrics helpful (75% R1-R2 vs 40% R3-R4; OR: 3.92 CI:0.74, 24.39) and 68.2% (15/22) stated they modified their performance based on these metrics (83.3% R1-R2 vs 50.0% R3-R4; OR:4.2 CI:0.73, 30.55); and 84.6% (22/26) of residents stated that mid-rotation subjective feedback and 45.5% (10/22) stated that mid-rotation objective feedback should be implemented in other sections.

CONCLUSIONS

Majority of residents found mid-rotation feedback to be helpful in informing them about their progress and areas for improvement in the neuroradiology rotation, more so for subjective feedback than objective feedback. The majority of residents stated all rotations should provide mid-rotation subjective feedback.

Why, How Often, and What Happens When We Fail: A Retrospective Analysis of Failed Fluoroscopically Guided Lumbar Punctures

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Important information regarding fluoroscopically guided lumbar puncture (FGLP) performance and referrals is lacking. The purpose of our study was to elucidate the success rate for initial FGLP attempts and re-attempts, reasons for unsuccessful FGLPs, and the relationship between clinical indications and whether patients will undergo a fluoroscopically guided re-attempt, among others.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective study analyzed failed FGLP attempts in hospitalized adult patients at an academic hospital between June 2016 and March 2022. Unsuccessful FGLPs were labeled as insufficient CSF egress. FGLP reports and patients' clinical charts were analyzed for pertinent information such as clinical indication, reason for failure, whether patients received IV fluid before fluoroscopically guided spinal puncture attempt, and which patients returned for another FGLP attempt. Patients' ages and sex were analyzed using descriptive statistics. The OR was used to investigate the relationship between the clinical indications to perform FGLP and whether patients returned for a re-attempt.

RESULTS

Sixty-three of 1389 (4.5%) patients (median age, 62 years) had failed the initial FGLPs administered by 39 trainees. Twenty-eight of 63 (44.4%) patients (median age, 64 years) underwent a re-attempt within a median of 2 days after the first attempt, and 27/28 (96.4%) re-attempts were successful. A dry tap, no egress of CSF was the top reason (58.7%) for failed FGLP, and 12/13 of patients had a successful FGLP after IV hydration. Twenty-seven of 63 (43%) patients did not undergo a repeat attempt, and 100% were subsequently discharged from the hospital. There was no difference (P > .05) in the likelihood of patients returning for a repeat FGLP based on the clinical indications.

CONCLUSIONS

Initial and repeat FGLPs have very high success rates. No difference exists in the likelihood of patients returning for a re-attempt based on clinical indication.