Research Challenges and Opportunities for Clinically Oriented Academic Radiology Departments

Between 2004 and 2012, US funding for the biomedical sciences decreased to historic lows. Health-related research was crippled by receiving only 1/20th of overall federal scientific funding. Despite the current funding climate, there is increased pressure on academic radiology programs to establish productive research programs. Whereas larger programs have resources that can be utilized at their institutions, small to medium-sized programs often struggle with lack of infrastructure and support. To address these concerns, the Association of University Radiologists’ Radiology Research Alliance developed a task force to explore any untapped research productivity potential in these smaller radiology departments. We conducted an online survey of faculty at smaller clinically funded programs and found that while they were interested in doing research and felt it was important to the success of the field, barriers such as lack of resources and time were proving difficult to overcome. One potential solution proposed by this task force is a collaborative structured research model in which multiple participants from multiple institutions come together in well-defined roles that allow for an equitable distribution of research tasks and pooling of resources and expertise. Under this model, smaller programs will have an opportunity to share their unique perspective on how to address research topics and make a measureable impact on the field of radiology as a whole. Through a health services focus, projects are more likely to succeed in the context of limited funding and infrastructure while simultaneously providing value to the field.

Introduction

Between 1995 and 2002, federal funding, specifically from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), increased for radiology departments by more than $175 million to an all-time high of more than $240 million. Despite this increase, fewer than half of academic radiology departments received any such funding during this time . This was such a troubling trend that in 2003, the Radiological Society of North America, American College of Radiology (ACR), American Roentgen Ray Society, and Academy of Radiology Research supported by the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering hosted a joint conference to address how to boost radiology research resources and challenge nonparticipating academic programs to develop research programs. The Association of University Radiologists (AUR)’s own Radiology Research Alliance (RRA) was established during this time with the mission of providing a forum to encourage and stimulate research and collaborations between members of the AUR.

Although valuable progress was made from all of these activities, the national funding growth trend did not continue and it became difficult for programs to invest in research. Between 2004 and 2012, US funding for the biomedical sciences decreased to historic lows . Health-related research was crippled by receiving only 1/20th of overall federal scientific funding. The US downward trend occurred while other countries around the world, such as China, doubled and often tripled their investments in scientific research .

The purpose of this paper is to examine the factors that are limiting research opportunities for specific radiology programs and propose potential solutions for addressing these hurdles while highlighting areas of research opportunity. The field of Radiology as a whole will benefit from a road map on how to increase collaboration, interdisciplinary cooperation, and diversity in areas of new research.

Motivations for Research and Current Issues

Despite these national negative trends, there remains a great need for clinically oriented research in medicine. In particular, the field of Radiology must increase its investment in research or risk losing its cutting-edge lead over other disciplines . However, meeting this need is much more difficult in the current academic climate .

As medical schools evolve and compete for funding resources in addition to top faculty and students, there is increased pressure for institutions to produce top-level research. Medical school accreditation benchmarks, such as those for the Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME), now include research activities . The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) includes scholarly activity as a mandatory requirement for residency graduation and requires documentation of such activities for the residents as well as the teaching faculty . Institutions have a major stake in maintaining these accreditations.

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Clinically Oriented Programs

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Survey

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Barriers to Research

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Clinically Oriented Academic Radiology Department Research Initiative (COARDRI): A Potential Solution

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Conclusions

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

References

1. Alderson P.O., Bresolin L.B., Becker G.J., et. al.: Enhancing research in academic radiology departments: recommendations of the 2003 consensus conference. Radiology 2004; 232: pp. 405-408.
2. Maguire M.A., Gore J.C.: The current state of NIH funding of research in diagnostic radiology at US medical schools. J Am Coll Radiol 2005; 2: pp. 436-443.
3. Stein S.: Congrats young scientists, you face the worst research funding in 50 years. Available at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/03/francis-colliins-nih-funding_n_6795900.html Accessed May 20
4. Moses H., Matheson D.H., Cairns-Smith S., et. al.: The anatomy of medical research: US and international comparisons. JAMA 2015; 313: pp. 174-189.
5. Liaison Committee on Medical Education : Functions and structure of a medical school: standards for accreditation of medical education programs leading to the M.D. degree. Available at: https://www.lcme.org/publications/functions.pdf Accessed August 7
6. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education : Diagnostic radiology. Available at: https://www.acgme.org/acgmeweb/tabid/148/ProgramandInstitutionalAccreditation/Hospital-BasedSpecialties/DiagnosticRadiology.aspx Accessed August 7
7. Residency Roadmap : Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis. Residency roadmap: diagnostic radiology. Available at: https://residency.wustl.edu/Choosing/SpecDesc/Pages/DiagnosticRadiology.aspx Accessed August 7
8. Academy of Radiology Research : 2014 Annual Report.2014.
9. Academy of Radiology Research : NIH awards to medical school departments diagnostic radiology fiscal year 2014. Available at: http://www.acadrad.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/FY14-Rankings.pdf Accessed August 1
10. Lee C.I., Basu P.A.: The radiologist’s guide to health services and policy research training. Am J Roentgenol 2011; 197: pp. W978-W979.
11. Goldsmith J.: The future of radiology in the new health care paradigm: the Moreton Lecture. J Am Coll Radiol 2011; 8: pp. 159-163.
12. Mansoori B., Vidal L.L., Applegate K., et. al.: Impact of patient protection and affordable care act on academic radiology departments’ clinical, research, and education missions. Acad Radiol 2013; 20: pp. 1213-1217.
13. Thrall J.H.: ACR research moves the practice of radiology forward. J Am Coll Radiol 2008; 5: pp. 1099-1100.
14. Pearson D.: Practice prophets: auguring the future of radiology practice. Radiol Bus J 2014; Available at: http://www.radiologybusiness.com/topics/leadership/practice-prophets-auguring-future-radiology-practice?nopaging=1 Accessed August 7, 2015
15. McDonald J.S., Port J.D., Bender C.E.: How to set up a departmental comparative effectiveness research unit: one department’s experience. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2014; 202: pp. 561-565.
16. Goehler A., Gazelle G.S.: Examining the use of comparative and cost-effectiveness analyses in radiology. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2014; 203: pp. 939-944.
17. Rawson J.V.: Comparative effectiveness research in radiology: patients, physicians and policy makers. Acad Radiol 2011; 18: pp. 1067-1071.
18. Pandharipande P.V., Gazelle G.S.: Comparative effectiveness research: what it means for radiology. Radiology 2009; 253: pp. 600-605.
19. Zafar A.M., Dhangana R., Murphy T.P., et. al.: Lower-extremity endovascular interventions for Medicare beneficiaries: comparative effectiveness as a function of provider specialty. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2012; 23: pp. 3-9 e1-14.
20. Hoffmann U., Truong Q.A., Schoenfeld D.A., et. al.: Coronary CT angiography versus standard evaluation in acute chest pain. N Engl J Med 2012; 367: pp. 299-308.
21. McDonald J.S., McDonald R.J., Fan J., et. al.: Comparative effectiveness of unruptured cerebral aneurysm therapies: propensity score analysis of clipping versus coiling. Stroke 2013; 44: pp. 988-994.
22. McDonald J.S., McDonald R.J., Fan J., et. al.: Comparative effectiveness of ruptured cerebral aneurysm therapies: propensity score analysis of clipping versus coiling. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2014; 35: pp. 164-169.
23. Mercaldi C.J., Lanes S.F.: Ultrasound guidance decreases complications and improves the cost of care among patients undergoing thoracentesis and paracentesis. Chest 2013; 143: pp. 532-538.
24. Panczykowski D.M., Tomycz N.D., Okonkwo D.O.: Comparative effectiveness of using computed tomography alone to exclude cervical spine injuries in obtunded or intubated patients: meta-analysis of 14,327 patients with blunt trauma. J Neurosurg 2011; 115: pp. 541-549.
25. Pearson S.D., Knudsen A.B., Scherer R.W., et. al.: Assessing the comparative effectiveness of a diagnostic technology: CT colonography. Health Aff (Millwood) 2008; 27: pp. 1503-1514.
26. Humphrey L.L., Teutsch S., Johnson M., et. al.: Lung cancer screening with sputum cytologic examination, chest radiography, and computed tomography: an update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2004; 140: pp. 740-753.
27. McMahon P.M., Kong C.Y., Johnson B.E., et. al.: Estimating long-term effectiveness of lung cancer screening in the Mayo CT screening study. Radiology 2008; 248: pp. 278-287.
28. Carlos R.C., Cronin P.: Making sense of the evidence using comparative effectiveness to guide clinical decision making, policy and coverage. Acad Radiol 2011; 18: pp. 1065-1066.
29. Hoffman A., Pearson S.D.: “Marginal medicine”: targeting comparative effectiveness research to reduce waste. Health Aff (Millwood) 2009; 28: pp. w710-w718.
30. Berg W.A., Blume J.D., Cormack J.B., et. al.: Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA 2008; 299: pp. 2151-2163.
31. Lehman C.D., Gatsonis C., Kuhl C.K., et. al.: MRI evaluation of the contralateral breast in women with recently diagnosed breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2007; 356: pp. 1295-1303.
32. Pisano E.D., Gatsonis C., Hendrick E., et. al.: Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 2005; 353: pp. 1773-1783.
33. Johnson C.D., Chen M.H., Toledano A.Y., et. al.: Accuracy of CT colonography for detection of large adenomas and cancers. N Engl J Med 2008; 359: pp. 1207-1217.
34. Hricak H., Gatsonis C., Chi D.S., et. al.: Role of imaging in pretreatment evaluation of early invasive cervical cancer: results of the intergroup study American College of Radiology Imaging Network 6651-Gynecologic Oncology Group 183. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: pp. 9329-9337.
35. Hricak H., Gatsonis C., Coakley F.V., et. al.: Early invasive cervical cancer: CT and MR imaging in preoperative evaluation—ACRIN/GOG comparative study of diagnostic performance and interobserver variability. Radiology 2007; 245: pp. 491-498.
36. Weinreb J.C., Blume J.D., Coakley F.V., et. al.: Prostate cancer: sextant localization at MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging before prostatectomy—results of ACRIN prospective multi-institutional clinicopathologic study. Radiology 2009; 251: pp. 122-133.
37. Carlos R.C.: Comparative effectiveness research: what does it mean for imaging?. Acad Radiol 2010; 17: pp. 1071-1072.
38. Baily M.A., Bottrell M., Lynn J., et. al.: The ethics of using QI methods to improve health care quality and safety. Hastings Cent Rep 2006; 36: pp. S1-S40.
39. Larson D.B., Duncan J.R., Nagy P.G., et. al.: Guide to effective quality improvement reporting in radiology. Radiology 2014; 271: pp. 561-573.
40. Kruskal J.B., Eisenberg R., Sosna J., et. al.: Quality initiatives: quality improvement in radiology: basic principles and tools required to achieve success. Radiographics 2011; 31: pp. 1499-1509.
41. Kruskal J.B., Reedy A., Pascal L., et. al.: Quality initiatives: lean approach to improving performance and efficiency in a radiology department. Radiographics 2012; 32: pp. 573-587.
42. Brook O.R., O’Connell A.M., Thornton E., et. al.: Quality initiatives: anatomy and pathophysiology of errors occurring in clinical radiology practice. Radiographics 2010; 30: pp. 1401-1410.
43. Duncan J.R., Larson D.B., Kruskal J.B.: Standardization of quality initiative reporting. Radiographics 2013; 33: pp. 373-374.
44. Sarwar A., Boland G., Monks A., et. al.: Metrics for radiologists in the era of value-based health care delivery. Radiographics 2015; 35: pp. 866-876.
45. Kruskal J.B.: Editorial: quality initiatives in radiology: historical perspectives for an emerging field. Radiographics 2008; 28: pp. 3-5.
46. Kruskal J.B., Anderson S., Yam C.S., et. al.: Strategies for establishing a comprehensive quality and performance improvement program in a radiology department. Radiographics 2009; 29: pp. 315-329.
47. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services : Potential radiology preferred specialty measured set. Available at: https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Quality-Initiatives-Patient-Assessment-Instruments/PQRS/Downloads/Potential_Radiology_Preferred_Specialty_Measure_Set_07_01_2014_508.pdf Accessed May 29
48. American College of Radiology : PQRS measures relevant to radiology. Available at: http://www.acr.org/Quality-Safety/Quality-Measurement/PQRS/Measures Accessed May 25
49. Dodoo M.S., Duszak R., Hughes D.R.: Trends in the utilization of medical imaging from 2003 to 2011: clinical encounters offer a complementary patient-centered focus. J Am Coll Radiol 2013; 10: pp. 507-512.
50. Levin D.C., Rao V.M., Parker L., et. al.: Bending the curve: the recent marked slowdown in growth of noninvasive diagnostic imaging. Am J Roentgenol 2011; 196: pp. W25-W29.
51. Levin D.C., Rao V.M., Parker L., et. al.: The sharp reductions in Medicare payments for noninvasive diagnostic imaging in recent years: will they satisfy the federal policymakers?. J Am Coll Radiol 2012; 9: pp. 643-647.
52. Lee D.W., Duszak R., Hughes D.R.: Comparative analysis of Medicare spending for medical imaging: sustained dramatic slowdown compared with other services. Am J Roentgenol 2013; 201: pp. 1277-1282.
53. Lang K., Huang H., Lee D.W., et. al.: National trends in advanced outpatient diagnostic imaging utilization: an analysis of the medical expenditure panel survey, 2000–2009. BMC Med Imaging 2013; 13: pp. 40.
54. Mitchell J.M.: Utilization trends for advanced imaging procedures: evidence from individuals with private insurance coverage in California. Med Care 2008; 46: pp. 460-466.
55. Payne N.R., Puumala S.E.: Racial disparities in ordering laboratory and radiology tests for pediatric patients in the emergency department. Pediatr Emerg Care 2013; 29: pp. 598-606.
56. Mills A.M., Raja A.S., Marin J.R.: Optimizing diagnostic imaging in the emergency department. Acad Emerg Med 2015; 22: pp. 625-631.
57. Levin D.C., Rao V.M., Parker L., et. al.: The changing roles of radiologists, cardiologists, and vascular surgeons in percutaneous peripheral arterial interventions during a recent five-year interval. J Am Coll Radiol 2005; 2: pp. 39-42.
58. Levin D.C., Rao V.M.: Turf wars in radiology: the overutilization of imaging resulting from self-referral. J Am Coll Radiol 2004; 1: pp. 169-172.
59. Maitino A.J., Levin D.C., Rao V.M., et. al.: Do emergency medicine physicians perform ultrasound and conventional radiography in the emergency department? Recent trends from 1993 to 2001. J Am Coll Radiol 2005; 2: pp. 274-278.
60. Sharpe R.E., Nazarian L.N., Parker L., et. al.: Dramatically increased musculoskeletal ultrasound utilization from 2000 to 2009, especially by podiatrists in private offices. J Am Coll Radiol 2012; 9: pp. 141-146.
61. Agarwal S., Jokerst C., Siegel M.J., et. al.: Pediatric emergency CT scans at a children’s hospital and at community hospitals: radiation technical factors are an important source of radiation exposure. Am J Roentgenol 2015; pp. 1-5.
62. Hopkins K.L., Pettersson D.R., Koudelka C.W., et. al.: Size-appropriate radiation doses in pediatric body CT: a study of regional community adoption in the United States. Pediatr Radiol 2013; 43: pp. 1128-1135.
63. Sharp N.E., Raghavan M.U., Svetanoff W.J., et. al.: Radiation exposure—how do CT scans for appendicitis compare between a free standing children’s hospital and non-dedicated pediatric facilities?. J Pediatr Surg 2014; 49: pp. 1016-1019.
64. Shue B., Damle R.N., Flahive J., et. al.: The increased use of CTA and MRA as the sole imaging modalities prior to infrainguinal bypass has had no effect on outcomes. Ann Vasc Surg 2015; 29: pp. 1245-1254.
65. Quaday K.A., Salzman J.G., Gordon B.D.: Magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography utilization trends in an academic ED. Am J Emerg Med 2014; 32: pp. 524-528.
66. Raja A.S., Ip I.K., Sodickson A.D., et. al.: Radiology utilization in the emergency department: trends of the past 2 decades. Am J Roentgenol 2014; 203: pp. 355-360.
67. Stiles R.G., Belt H.C.: Socioeconomic and political issues in radiology: a historical analysis. Radiology 1991; 180: pp. 823-829.
68. Moynihan B.: An address on some aspects of cholelithiasis: delivered before the Listerian Society, King’s College Hospital, on January 21st, 1925. Br Med J 1925; 1: pp. 393.
69. AHCCCS : Deficit reduction act of 2005.2005.pp. PL 109e71.
70. Hendee W.R., Becker G.J., Borgstede J.P., et. al.: Addressing overutilization in medical imaging. Radiology 2010; 257: pp. 240-245.
71. Rubin Z., Blackham K.: The state of radiologic teaching practice in preclinical medical education: survey of American medical, osteopathic, and podiatric schools. J Am Coll Radiol 2015; 12: pp. 403-408.
72. Nulty D.D.: The adequacy of response rates to online and paper surveys: what can be done?. Assess Eval High Educ 2008; 33: pp. 301-314.

Research Challenges and Opportunities for Clinically Oriented Academic Radiology Departments

Introduction

Motivations for Research and Current Issues

Clinically Oriented Programs

Survey

Barriers to Research

Clinically Oriented Academic Radiology Department Research Initiative (COARDRI): A Potential Solution

Potential Research Areas

Public Policy

Background

Challenges

Opportunities

Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER)

Background

Challenges

Opportunities

Quality Improvement

Background

Current Challenges

Opportunities

Imaging Utilization

Background

Challenges

Opportunities

Education

Background

Challenges

Opportunities

Conclusions

References

Further Reading

An Aneurysm by Any Other Name

Anisotropy of Solid Breast Lesions in 2D Shear Wave Elastography is an Indicator of Malignancy

Big Data and the Future of Radiology Informatics